THE  OLD  AND  THE  NEW  MAN: 


OR, 


SIN  AND  SALVATION. 


BY 

THE  REV.  ANSON  WEST,  D.D. 

Of  the  North  Alabama  Conference. 


NASHVILLE,  TENN. : 
SOUTHERN   METHODIST  PUBLISHING   HOUSE. 

1885. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1885, 

liv  THE  BOOK  AGENTS  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOVTH, 

in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


PREFACE. 

THERE  is  a  being  called  man.  Whence  is  he?  What  is  he?  To 
propose  these  questions  is  to  indicate  somewhat  the  nature  and  ca- 
pacity of  the  being  concerning  whom  they  are  propounded.  To  in- 
quire is  one  thing  which  distinguishes  man  among  the  various  kinds 
of  beings  and  sorts  of  things  about  him.  The  trees  of  the  forest 
never  ask  questions,  never  search  for  the  treasures  of  knowledge. 
In  like  manner,  the  beasts  of  the  field,  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  the 
fowls  of  the  air,  never  institute  a  search  for  knowledge.  They  never 
distinguish  truth,  they  never  review  history.  They  are  without  ex- 
perience, scheme,  or  skill.  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God, 
but  have  no  glory  of  their  own.  The  firmament  shows  the  handi- 
work of  the  omniscient  and  omnipotent  Jehovah,  but  displays  no 
handiwork  of  its  own.  To  inquire  "is  wisdom;  to  doubt,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  convincing  testimony,  is  foolishness.  To  be  indifferent  to 
error  is  folly;  to  accept  falsehood  is  criminal;  to  distinguish  and  hold 
the  truth  is  legitimate  and  proper.  To  speak  of  that  which  is  legiti- 
mate and  that  which  is  criminal  is  to  introduce  the  moral  realm,  and 
present  not  only  the  intellectuality  of  man,  but  his  moral  nature  and 
endowments.  The  subject  enlarges,  the  view  expands,  and  the  field 
of  inquiry  fills  the  whole  expanse  between  nonentity  and  divinity. 
When  the  questions,  Whence  is  man?  and  what  is  he?  recur,  they 
suggest  for  consideration  his  relations,  capacities,  obligations,  neces- 
sities, and  destiny.  His  relations  to  the  source  of  his  being,  to  the 
law  under  which  lie  exists,  apostasy  and  redemption,  life  and  death, 
immortality  and  annihilation,  all  crowd  into  view  as  subjects  of  pro- 
found interest.  All  teachers  of  religion  are  called  upon  to  instruct 
in  these  things.  The  author  of  this  book  herein  contributes  what 
lie  can  in  the  scope  and  space  allowed. 

The  contents  and  purpose  of  this  book  are  indicated  by  the  title. 
Confining  the  discussion  to  the  theme  in  hand,  the  subject  is  thorough- 
ly and  exhaustively  presented.  This  book  has  not  been  written  in 
haste,  and  it  has  not  been  written  in  any  spirit  of  trifling.  These 
pages  indulge  in  no  novelties.  Truth,  like  God,  is  immutable.  It 
never  changes.  What  was  true  eighteen  centuries  ago  is  true  now; 

(3) 


4  J'n-face. 

what  was  false  then  is  false  now.  The  Bible  is  complete,  and  no 
truth  therein  contained  can  be  changed,  modified,  or  annulled.  All 
naturalists,  geologists,  astronomers,  and  philosophers  should  con- 
form their  theories  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible.  There  is  nothing 
in  nature  which,  in  any  way,  antagonizes  the  Bible.  Profound  con- 
victions of  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  and  an  earnest  desire  to  suppress 
the  rising  tide  of  heresies,  and  to  contribute  to  the  dissemination 
and  maintenance  of  sound  doctrine,  have  prompted  in  the  writing 
of  this  book. 

The  author  claims  that  in  all  its  doctrines  and  utterances  this 
book  is  evangelical,  Arminian,  Methodistic,  and  scriptural. 

The  following  is  the  doctrine  peculiar  to  the  Calvinistic  system: 
That  God,  by  an  absolute  decree,  elected  to  salvation  a  definite  num- 
ber of  men,  without  any  regard  to  their  faith  and  obedience;  and 
by  the  same  decree  excluded  from  saving  grace,  and  reprobated  to 
eternal  damnation,  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  that  without  regard 
to  their  impenitence  and  unbelief;  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  make 
satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  race,  but  suffered  death  for  the 
elect  only;  that  God  has,  by  his  eternal  and  secret  decree,  foreor- 
dained whatsoever  conies  to  pass,  and  put  an  unavoidable  necessity 
on  men  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  whatsoever  they  do  or  do  not,  whether  it 
be  good  or  evil;  that  to  the  elect  God  gives  grace,  and  they  cannot 
reject  it,  and  that  to  the  reprobate  he  offers  no  grace,  and  they  can- 
not accept  it;  that  such  as  have  received  grace  by  faith  can  never 
fall  from  it  finally  or  totally,  notwithstanding  the  most  enormous 
sins  they  can  commit. 

This  Calvinistic  doctrine  is  unhesitatingly  and  most  emphatically 
rejected  in  these  pages  as  unreasonable,  and  as  unscriptural.  To 
bind  a  man  in  eternal  fute,  and  doom  him  without  any  reference  to 
his  moral  character  or  conduct,  is  to  reduce  him  to  the  level  of  a 
machine,  and  punish  him  without  his  incurring  penalty.  To  redeem" 
some  and  reprobate  others,  without  any  reference  to  moral  conduct, 
is  to  act  without  a  reason;  to  force  grace  upon  some  and  withhold 
it  from  others  is  partiality.  God  does  not  act  without  a  reason,  and 
he  is  no  respecter  of  persons. 

Pelagians  teach  that  holiness  is  right  action,  or  the  habit  acquired 
by  repeated  virtuous  actions;  that  holiness  cannot  be  concreated  with, 
or  wrought  into  the  nature  of,  a  moral  agent;  and  hence  that  Adam 
was  not  created  holy,  and  that  he  was,  when  created,  mortal,  and 
would  have  died,  though  he  had  not  sinned;  that  Adam  was  not  the 


Preface.  5 

federal  head  and  legal  representative  of  his  race;  that  his  sin  was 
not  imputed  to  his  posterity;  that  all  children  are  born  into  the 
•world  neither  righteous  nor  sinful,  without  the  taint  or  contagion 
of  sin,  without  depravity  or  evil  nature,  without  any  bent  or  incli- 
nation to  evil,  and  free  from  guilt  and  condemnation;  that  human 
nature  is  not  to  be  disparaged ;  that  the  nature  of  evefy  man  as  it 
comes  into  the  world  is  the  work  and  gift  of  God;  that  sin  does  not 
pass  on  to  all  men  by  natural  descent,  but  by  following  or  imitating 
Adam ;  that  death  and  sufferings  are  not  visited  upon  men  here  as 
penalty  for  sin,  but  only  for  correction  and  improvement;  that  re- 
generation is  not  a  work  wrought  by  God  in  the  heart  of  the  indi- 
vidual, changing  it  from  a  state  of  depravity  to  a  state  of  holiness, 
but  that  regeneration  is  the  work  of  the  individual,  and  consists  in 
gaining  the  habits  of  virtue  by  repeated  good  acts;  that  the  death 
of  Christ  is  not  necessary  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  only  fit  or 
expedient  in  the  administration  of  the  divine  government;  that 
Christ  was  only  a  man,  and  that  his  death  was  not  vicarious  nor  ex- 
piatory, and  that  as  a  model  of  virtue  he  died  simply  as  an  example 
of  duty  and  goodness  to  be  imitated ;  that  as  an  example  his  death 
is  reforming,  and  that  this  is  the  only  sense  in  which  the  word  atone- 
ment can  be  attributed  to  his  death ;  that  his  suffering  is  no  satisfac- 
tion to  justice  or  to  the  divine  law;  and  that  there  is  no  divine  wrath 
against  sin  to  be  appeased. 

This  whole  Pelagian  theory,  which,  crystallized  into  a  complete 
system,  takes  in  all  the  heresies  of  Arianism,  Unitarianism,  and 
Socinianism,  is  rejected,  and,  as  the  author  fully  believes,  is  com- 
pletely refuted  in  this  book. 

Believing  that  this  book  contains  the  truth  as  it  is  revealed  in  the 
Holy  Bible,  and  hoping  that  it  will  contribute  to  the  extension  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  among  men,  it  is  published  and  given  to  the 
reading  public.  I%  ANSON  WEST. 

E,  ALABAMA,  May  23, 1885. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I.— THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN. 

Being — Eternity  of  being — Self-exNiPnoe — The  origin  of  things — God  the 
Author  and  Maker  of  things— The  days  of  creation — The  cosmogony  of 
Moses — D.ir»vin — Hugh  Miller — (ieology 9-23 

CHAPTER  II.— THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN. 

Adam  and  Eve  a  nair,  and  the  only  pair  created— All  men  have  proceeded 
from  Adam  and  Eve  by  propagation— Man  has  a  body  and  a  soul — Dichotomy 
— The  soul— Preexisteiit:e— Creation  and  infusion— Traduction 24-37 

CHAPTER  III. — THE  NATURAL  AND  MORAL  STATE  WHEREIN  ADAM, 

THK  FIRST  MAN,  WAS  CHEATED. 

Man  created  in  the  image  of  God — Innocence — Guilt — Knowledge — Righteous* 
ness—  Holiness—  Ooedience  and  holiness— Holiness  a  quality— Bellows-- 
Bledsoe — Taylor — Immortality  of  man 38-5:2 

CHAPTER  IV*. — MAN'S  FIR.ST  TRANSGRESSION. 

The  Garden  of  Eden — The  prohibition — The  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil— The  precept  given  in  the  prohibition— Adam's  ability  to  keep  the  law, 
and  to  violate  it — Positive  and  moral  precepts — The  account  of  the  tempta- 
tion of  Adam  history  not  allegory— Through  what  channel  Adam  and  Eve 
were  approached  in  the  temptation — The  existence  of  evil  spirits 53-64 

CHAPTER  V. — THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF  THE 

FIRST  MAN. 

Enactment  of  penalty  against  sin — Death  a  penalty — Definition  of  death — 
Effect  of  sin  upon  the  human  will,  find  upon  human  reason— One  sin  con- 
stitutes the  sum  of  all  guilt — Whether  Adam  suffered  a  privation  of  right- 
eousness or  an  infusion  of  evil 65-72 

CHAPTER  VI. — THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  TIIF.  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF  THE 

FIRST  MAN. 

Did  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  terminate  on  himself,  or  did  they  involve 
his  posterity ?— The  theory  of  Pelagiu* — Dr.  John  Taylor — Dr.  Biedsoe — 
Relation  of  Adam  to  his  posterity — Adam's  sin  transmitted  by  generation— 
Adam's  sin  imputed  to  his  posterity  iu  legal  administration 73-81 

CHAPTER  VII.— THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF  THE 

FIRST  MAN. 

Objections  to  original  sin — Objections  to  the  terms  used  in  setting  forth  the 
doctrine — Adam  federal  head  and  legal  representative  of  his  race — Original 
sin — Imputed  sin — Individuality  and  eommunality — The  distinction  of 
original  and  personal  sin — Eighteenth  chapter  of  Ezekiel 82-07 

CHAPTER  VIII. — THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF  THE 

FIRST  MAN. 

Infant  damnation — The  doctrine  peculiarly  Calvinistic — Infant  salvation  grow- 
ing out  of  original  sin — Atonement -Justification — Regeneration — Sinful 
Adam  produces  sinful  progeny — The  inability  of  infunts,  idiots,  and  lu- 
natics— Prostration  of  the  will — Relation  of  acts  and  dispositions — Matthew 
xviii.  :5,  and  Mark  x.  13-15 — Sufferings  inflicted  a  penalty  for  sin — No  pun- 
ishment where  there  is  no  guilt — Suffering  and  punishment  inseparable — 
Romans  vi.  0;  Ephesians  iv.  22;  Colossians  iii.  9,  10;  1  Corinthians  ii.  14— 
Men  sinners  naturally  and  innately 98-121 

CHAPTER  IX.— THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF  THE 

FIRST  MAN. 

Eternal  death— Theories  of  Pelagians,  Arians,  Unitarians,  and  Universalists— 
Infinite  sin,  infinite  wrath,  infinite  and  eternal  punishment — Sin  per  se — 
Obedience  cannot  abolish  sin — Repentance  cannot  change  the  character  of 
sin— Suffering  cannot  annul  sin— The  law  cannot  release  from  sin— God 
cannot  do  otherwise  than  punish  sin — The  wrath  of  God  abides  on  sinners 
— The  provision  made  for  salvation— The  theory  of  Universalists— Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,  took  human  nature,  died  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God  — 
Salvation  suspended  upon  conditions,  and  involved  in  contingency — Texts 
bearing  upon  these  points— Eternal  punishment  reasonable  and  just..  122-140 

(7) 


8  Contents. 

CHAPTER  X. — GOD,  WITHOUT  WHOM,  AND  IN  TIIE  REJECTION  OF  WHOM, 

THERE  is  No  SALVATION. 

The  being  and  perfections  of  God— All  principles,  rights,  obligations,  and  gov- 
ernment depend  on  the  existence  of  God — God  not  self-created,  but  self- 
existent — Essence  of  God — Not  the  universe — His  essence  not  imported  to 
any  tiling— He  is  in  e>sence  a  Spirit— One  God  overall  things — He  is  im 
mutable — In  his  administration  he  changes — He  is  ubiquitous — He  i-<  the 
Almighty— He  knows  all  things— His  omniscience— His  holiness— His  justice 
— His  goodness — Histriunity — The  relation  of  the  three  persons  in  the  <;r Mi- 
head— The  Son,  God,  eternal  in  essence  and  person — Father,  Son,  ami  Holy 
Ghost,  terms  designating  and  distinguishing  the  persons  in  the  Trinity,  and 
do  not  express  acts  by  which  the  relations  of  the  divine  persons  originated 
— The  Holy  Ghost,  God,  eternal  in  essence  and  person — The  divine  essence 
is  not  communicable — Father,  Son.  and  Holy  Ghost,  all  self-existent — Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Son  of  man,  the  God-man— Creation— Eternal 
generation — Eternal  procession — Self-existence — Union  of  the  two  nat- 
ures  141-180 

CHAPTER  XI.— REDEMPTION. 

Jesus — Saviour  and  Redeemer — Jesus  died  as  no  man  ever  died — The  Lamb 
of  God— The  word  "redeem" — Christ's  sufferings  penal — Jesus  died  not  for 
his  own  sins,  but  for  sins  of  others — His  death  expiatory  and  substitutional 
— Punitive  justice,  vicarious  suffering,  and  sacrificial  expiation  of  guilt- 
Taylor — Sykes — Bledsoe — Bellows — Administrative  and  retributive  justice 
— Christ  a" Redeemer  in  all  ages— Dr.  Carpenter— Nothing  like  satisfaction 
and  substitution — The  ca*es  of  Zileucus  and  the  teacher  Alcott — Redemp- 
tion removed  from  all  illustration  and  comparison — The  expiation  finished 
— Salvation  not  consummated  on  the  cross — The  atonement  made  for  all 
the  race — The  atonement  sufficient— Christ  did  not  keep  the  precepts  of 
the  law  in  the  place  of  any  one — He  did  not  abolish  the  law — Every  Chris- 
tian under  obligation  to  obey  the  law — Salvation  offered  upon  conditions — 
The  word  of  God  upon  the  limit  and  application  of  the  atonement — The 
results  contingent 181-242 

CHAPTER  XII.— JUSTIFICATION. 

Justification  defined — God  only  can  forgive  sins — Sins  forgiven  for  the  merit 
of  Jesus — The  forgiveness  of  sins  the  same  in  all  generations — The  condi- 
tion upon  which  justification  is  attained — Repentance — Immersion — Bap- 
tism—Imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  and  obedience — Faith— Paul  and 
James 24.j-2.~i8 

CHAPTER  XIII. — REGENERATION. 

Generation  and  regeneration — All  men  need  regeneration — Regeneration  de- 
fined and  described — All  men  recipients  of  prevenient  grace — The  Holy 
Ghost  alone  can  change  the  heart — The  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit — 8am:- 
tification— Holiness 250-281 

CHAPTER  XIV. — THE  SACKAMENTS  or  THK  CHURCH — BAPTISM  AND 

THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

The  Church  originated  with  God  in  the  scheme  of  redemption — Set  np  in  the 
covenant  made  with  the  apostate  Adam — Baptism — The  character  and  pur- 
pose of  baptism— The  terms  used  in  designating  baptism— No  specific  mode 
prescribed — Haptism  should  be  properly  estimated — Who  are  entitled  to 
baptism? — The  baptism  of  infants — The  Lord's  Supper — It  is  a  sacrament 
— Transubstantiation — Consubstantiation — Who  are  entitled  to  the  Lord's 
Supper? 282-317 

CHAPTER  XV.— THE  PERSONAL  CHRISTIAN  LIFK  TERMINATING  IN 

THE  FINAL  REWARDS  OF  SALVATION. 

Life  a  probation— Revelatjon — The  Bible  supernatural — The  divinity  of  the 
Bible  attested— Things  pertaining  to  the  Christian  within  the  realm  of  tho 
supernatural,  the  invisible,  and  the  future — Faith — Hope  saves — Final  sal- 
vation of  the  Christian  contingent— Final  glorification ''18-335 


THE  OLD  AND  THE  NEW  MAN, 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN. 

BEIISTG  is  a  fact,  and  the  first  of  all  facts.  There  is 
real  existence,  absolute  being,  the  doubts  and  denials 
thereof  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  There  is  a  tangi- 
ble and  visible  world.  Being  is  the  basis  of  being.  Exist- 
ence, or  being,  has  back  of  it,  as  great  underlying  ideas, 
preexistence  from  eternity  and  self-existence.  There  can 
be  no  proper  conception  of  being  and  the  origin  of  being 
without  these  ideas.  The  eternity  of  being  is  one  thing, 
while  the  eternity  of  matter  is  quite  another.  This  dis- 
tinction should  be  carefully  considered  and  clearly  compre- 
hended. Eternity  of  matter  does  not  essentially  underlie 
existence,  and  utterly  fails  to  account  for  the  origin  of  be- 
ing; while  eternity  of  being,  or  preexistence  from  eternity, 
is  essentially  inseparable  from  existence.  Being  necessarily 
involves  the  eternity  of  being,  but  not  the  eternity  of  mere 
matter.  Could  the  eternity  of  matter  be  established  be- 
yond a  perad venture,  this  would  account  only  for  the  exist- 
ence of  matter,  and  would  in  nowise  account  for  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Avorld  as  it  is  with  mind  and  spirit  and  life  and 
thought.  It  is  unnecessary  to  elaborate  this  thought  in 
this  connection.  It  is  not  within  the  power  of  any  thing 
to  produce  or  impart  that  which  it  does  not  possess,  and  it 
is,  therefore,  impossible  for  nonentity  to  give  birth  to  some- 
thing. Matter  does  not  possess  life,  spirit,  mind,  thought, 

(9J 


10  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

action,  and  therefore  does  not  and  cannot  impart  these. 
Nonentity  cannot  produce  something.  There  is  something 
in  existence,  therefore  something  has  always  existed. 

Self-existence  also  is  involved  in  being,  for  it  is  manifest 

from  the  above  conclusions  that  in  the  absence  of  a  being 

with   inherent  existence,  independent  of  any  other  cause 

than  that  in  itself,  there  never  could  be  any  substance  or 

,,auy  thing  constituting  existence. 

These  truths,  therefore,  may  lead  us  to  look  for  the  ori- 
gin and  cause  of  being,  and  with  the  light  of  revelation 
shining  upon  the  subject  we  can  at  once  find  the  being  pos- 
sessing the  characteristics  of  essential  and  independent  ex- 
istence— the  very  author  of  being — the  cause  and  originator 
of  all  other  beings  and  things.  God,  Jehovah,  are  his 
names.  He  announces  himself,  "  I  AM  THAT  I  AM."  It 
is  said  of  him:  ''Before  the  mountains  were  brought  forth, 
or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the  world,  even 
from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  thou  art  God."  He  is  "  the 
high  and  lofty  one  that  inhabiteth  eternity,  whose  name  is 
Holy." 

God — the  self-existent,  independent,  eternal,  and  ever- 
living  God — is  the  author  of  being,  the  cause  of  existence. 
He  made  all  things.  He  not  only  formed,  combined,  and 
adjusted  materials  and  things,  but  he  created  the  very  ele- 
ments, or  essence,  of  things.  He  created  the  things  that  are 
out  of  nothing.  "  The  worlds  were  framed  by  the  word  of 
God,  so  that  things  which  are  seen  were  not  made  of  things 
which  do  appear."  "By  him  were  all  things  created  that 
arc  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible, 
whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or 
powers;  all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him;  and 
lie  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist."  There 
were  no  chaotic  elements  out  of  which  the  Lord  made  the 
worlds,  but  by  his  own  word  he  spoke  out  of  nonentity  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  11 

things  that  be.  The  production  of  the  first  elements  of  be- 
ing, and  the  framing  and  forming  of  the  whole  into  the 
world  as  it  is,  was  but  one  act  of  creation.  The  theory  of 
development,  either  by  natural  laws  or  stages  of  formations, 
is  repugnant  to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  obnoxious  to 
many  objections  from  a  philosophical  stand-point.  The  first 
declaration  of  Moses  is:  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth."  This  includes  the  entire  of  th^ 
heavens  and  the  earth,  and  presents  the  creation  of  the 
whole  as  one  act,  and  as  taking  place  at  one  time  in  the  be- 
ginning. Moses  further  teaches  that  the  whole  work  of 
creation  was  completed  in  six  literal  days  of  twenty-four 
hours  each. 

The  view  that  the  world  came  into  existence  as  a  divine 
production,  out  of  nothing,  made  and  completed  in  six  lit- 
eral days,  has  been  and  is  rejected  by  scientists  so  called. 
However  these  scientists  who  reject  this  view  may  differ  in 
the  terms  they  use,  and  the  line  of  argument  they  pursue, 
and  whatever  the  shades  of  difference  in  their  theories,  they 
all  come  to  the  same  end,  and  harmonize  in  the  same  gen- 
eral system.  Instead  of  the  above  view,  these  scientists 
teach  that  the  universe  is  a  growth,  the  result  of  a  series  of 
changes  which  have  been  going  on  from  an  incalculable  pe- 
riod in  antiquity.  The  earth,  they  contend,  with  its  conti- 
nents and  oceans,  etc.,  is  the  result  of  numerous  deposits 
and  transformations,  and  under  the  principles  of  progress, 
and  in  multiplied  forms,  life  has  been  reproducing  creatures 
for  innumerable  millions  of  years,  and  in  each  evolution 
reaching  a  higher  order  of  life  and  being.  Rejecting  the 
supernatural  in  the  production  of  things,  they  claim  that 
through  some  original  force  the  universe  has  reached  its 
present  form  and  condition  by  a  gradual  growth.  This  is 
the  theory  with  which  the  doctrine  of  a  proper  creation  by 
a  divine  Creator,  and  the  chronology  of  the  Bible  which, 


]  2  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

in  its  literal  interpretation,  fixes  the  creation  of  the  world 
at  a  definite  period,  and  in  the  short  time  of  six  literal 
days,  are  sought  to  be  supplanted. 

Spencer,  Darwin,  and  Hugh  Miller,  with  other  infidels, 
have  expended  no  little  labor  in  the  endeavor  to  show  that 
the  Bible  idea  of  creation,  as  to  nature  and  time,  is  false. 
They  have  sought  to  fix  an  epoch  at  which  certain  strata, 
coals,  rocks,  minerals,  mammals,  and  other  deposits,  had  no 
existence — an  epoch  at  which  there  was  nothing  but  neb- 
ula3  or  atoms  or  vapor;  and  they  have  talked  learnedly 
about  segregation,  disintegration,  concentration,  condensa- 
tion, disaggregation,  and  attraction,  until  they  have  evolved 
and  developed  the  world  as  it  is! 

Some  may  object  to  our  classing  Hugh  Miller  with  infi- 
del scientists.  It  is  true  he  professed  to  believe  the  Bible 
but  the  theory  which  he  has  put  forth  in  the  name  of  the 
science  of  geology,  and  under  the  title;  "Testimony  of  the 
Rocks,"  is  as  antagonistic  to  the  Bible,  and  as  destructive 
of  its  divine  teachings,  as  the  theories  of  Spencer  and  Dar- 
win put  forth  in  the  name  of  general  science  with  the  titles, 
"Social  Statics,"  "First  Principles,"  "Principles  of  Biol- 
ogy," "Descent  of  Man,"  etc.  His  groupings  of  rocks  and 
coals,  of  minerals  and  mammals,  and  of  shells  and  bones, 
for  proving  development  in  the  production  and  formation 
of  the  world,  are  just  as  objectionable  and  atheistical  as 
Mr.  Spencer's  and  Mr.  Darwin's  speculations  about  the 
"  Survival  of  the  Fittest"  and  "  Natural  Selection  "  to  prove 
evolution  and  development.  Mr.  Miller  teaches  that  ani- 
mals and  plants  existed  many  thousands  of  years  before 
man  existed,  and  that  the  earth  existed  many  thousands  of 
years  before  animals  aad  plants.  He  teaches  "that  untold 
ages  ere  man  had  sinned  or  suffered,  the  animal  creation 
exhibited  exactly  its  present  state  of  war."  He  leaches 
that  long  before  "  man  appeared  in  creation,  and  darkened 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  13 

its  sympathetic  face  with  the  stain  of  moral  guilt,  the  reign 
of  violence  and  outrage"  began,  and  "  that  there  was  death 
among  the  inferior  creatures  and  suffering."  Thus  he  joins 
other  infidels  in  rejecting  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  and  the  inti'oduction  of  death  and  suffering. 

But  let  us  look  at  the  theory  of  these  scientists.  There 
are  more  fictions  and  assumptions  in  their  theory  than  facts 
and  science.  There  is  not  a  fact  in  science  which  is  in  con- 
flict with  the  doctrine  of  a  proper  creation,  nor  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  creation  of  the  world  in  all  its  parts  and  as 
a  whole  in  six  literal  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each. 
Again,  this  theory  of  these  infidel  scientists  is  not  a  thing 
of  yesterday.  It  is  not  the  discovery  of  the  present  cent- 
ury, as  some  would  boast,  brought  out  under  the  increased 
light  of  recent  scientific  discovery.  Not  at  all.  In  its 
main  points  and  general  principles  it  is  as  old  as  philosophy, 
falsely  so  called — as  old  as  infidelity. 

In  the  very  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  and  even 
before,  there  were  those  who  rejected  the  cosmogony  of 
Moses.  Celsus,  who,  I  believe,  wrote  in  the  second  century 
of  the  Christian  era,  "  cast  discredit  upon  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count of  creation,  and  intimated  his  agreement  with  those 
who  held  that  the  world  is  uncreated."  Again  he,  "ex- 
pressing in  a  single  word  his  opinion  regarding  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony,  finds  fault  with  it,  saying:  'Moreover,  their 
cosmogony  is  extremely  silly.'"  In  another  place  he  says: 
"  By  far  the  most  silly  thing  is  the  distribution  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  over  certain  days,  before  days  existed ; 
for,  as  the  heaven  was  not  yet  created,  nor  the  foundation 
of  the  earth  yet  laid,  nor  the  sun  yet  revolving,  how  could 
there  be  days?"  This  we  gather  from  Origen,  who,  in  the 
third  century,  wrote  against  Celsus.  These  are  just  such 
attacks  as  are  still  made  in  the  nineteenth  century  upon  the 
account  of  creation  recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis. 


14  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

In  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  there  were  those  who 
condemned  the  Mosaic  history  and  chronology  which  set 
forth  the  world  as  a  creation,  and  fix  the  time  of  its  crea- 
tion at  four  thousand  years  before  Christ.  Augustine, 
speaking  of  these  men,  says:  "They  are  deceived,  too,  by 
those  highly  mendacious  documents  which  profess  to  give 
the  history  of  many  thousand  years,  though,  reckoning  by 
the  sacred  writings,  we  find  that  not  six  thousand  years 
have  yet  passed."  Augustine  wrote  some  of  his  works  in 
the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  In  these  early  centuries 
we  find  the  Christians  of  sound  orthodoxy  defending  them- 
selves and  the  account  of  creation  against  the  very  same 
attacks  that  are  being  made  now;  they  defend  a  proper 
creation  out  of  nothing  in  the  beginning  in  six  literal  days, 
four  thousand  years  before  Christ.  It  is,  therefore,  decep- 
tious,  false,  and  pernicious  to  assume  that  the  doctrine  that 
the  world  did  not  have  its  origin  in  a  proper  creation  in  six 
literal  days,  but  in  a  growth  or  development  of  indefinite 
periods,  reaching  back  millions  of  ages  into  eternity,  is  the 
discovery  of  the  present  age,  made  by  the  light  of  increased 
scientific  knowledge,  the  product  of  an  era  of  advanced 
thought. 

Philosophers  and  scientists,  so  called,  often  kiss  religion 
in  order  to  gain  an  opportunity  of  more  effectually  smiting 
it.  Their  declarations  concerning  religion,  and  their  con- 
cessions to  it,  are  often  most  wonderful  indeed,  as  a  few  ex- 
amples will  show. 

On  page  18  of  his  "Evolution-Philosophy,"  Gazelles 
says:  "Science  is  no  longer  a  rival  of  religion."  On 
page  72  he  says:  "There  are,  then,  but  two  methods  fun- 
damentally and  essentially  opposed — the  theological  and 
the  positive."  And  yet  on  another  page  he  declares:  "  Re- 
ligion ought  to  renew  its  symbols  in  accordance  with  the 
developments  of  science."  From  this  stand-point  he  also 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  15 

utters  the  following:  "Religion,  then,  is  legitimate,  and 
science  is  indispensable."  What  concessions  these  to  relig- 
ion! Science  is  not  only  legitimate,  it  is  indispensable! 
Religion  is  not  indispensable  in  any  view!  It  is  legitimate 
if  it  will  renew  its  symbols  and  change  its  dogmas  so  as  to 
bring  itself  into  harmony  with  science!  Then,  and  only 
then,  will  it  be  true,  we  suppose,  that  "science  is  no  longer 
the  rival  of  religion ! " 

Mr.  Hugh  Miller  makes  about  the  same  insulting  conces- 
sions to  religion  while  giving  what  is  his  proposed  scheme 
of  reconciliation  of  the  Mosaic  and  geologic  records.  In 
his  work,  "Testimony  of  the  Rocks,"  at  page  194,  he  writes: 
"In  what  light,  or  on  what  principle,  shall  we  most  cor- 
rectly read  the  prophetic  drama  of  creation?  In  the  light, 
I  reply,  of  scientific  discovery — on  the  principle  that  the 
clear  and  certain  must  be  accepted,  when  attainable,  as  the 
proper  exponents  of  the  doubtful  and  obscure."  Accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Miller,  the  discoveries  of  science  have  made 
things  clear  and  certain ;  the  Mosaic  record  is  doubtful  and 
obscure!  Surely,  with  this  scheme  of  reconciliation  in 
force,  "science  is  no  longer  a  rival  of  religion."  The  truth 
is,  the  theories  and  speculations  of  geologists  and  other  sci- 
entists are  most  generally  in  conflict  with  and  in  opposition 
to  religion.  But  it  is  true  also  that  the  religion  of  the  Bi- 
ble is  not  and  never  was  in  opposition  to  nature,  or  in  con- 
flict with  it.  There  is  no  rivalry  between  the  Bible  and 
nature.  The  Bible,  having,  as  has  been  said,  "  God  for  its 
author,  truth  without  any  mixture  of  error  for  its  matter, 
and  the  salvation  of  man  for  its  end,"  is  the  clearest  and 
best  book  given  to  man,  and  nothing  which  it  reveals  or 
teaches  is  in  conflict  with  the  laws  and  facts  and  truths  of 
nature.  With  implicit  confidence  we  accept  whatever  is 
clear,  certain,  and  true  in  nature.  The  true  in  science  we 
admire  and  love,  but  whatever  sets  itself  in  conflict  with 


1C  The  Old  and  the  Xew  Man: 

the  Bible  and  its  plain  interpretations,  under  whatever  ti- 
tles it  may  claim  favor,  we  scout  and  condemn  as  unphilo- 
sophical  and  vain. 

Geologists  have  indulged  in  more  speculations,  vain  and 
delusive,  than  any  class  of  men,  perhaps,  known  to  our 
age.  Most  of  what  is  written  by  them  is  founded  in  mere 
assumptions.  Even  their  facts,  many  of  them,  are  no  facts 
at  all.  We  should  not  give  place  to  their  delusions  for  a 
moment.  After  all  their  researches  and  discoveries,  what 
do  we  know  of  the  earth  ?  One  of  the  very  best  geologists  and 
most  trustworthy  authors  among  them  says:  "The  highest 
mountains  do  not  rise  five  miles  above  the  level  of  the  sea, 
and  the  deepest  mines  descend  only  about  a  third  part  of  a 
mile,  so  that  even  were  we  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  en- 
tire space  between  the  tops  of  the  highest  mountain  and  the 
bottom  of  the  deepest  mine,  it  would  form  but  a  very  in- 
significant fraction  of  the  distance  between  the  surface  and 
center  of  the  globe,  which  is  nearly  four  thousand  miles." 
("  Elements  of  Geology,"  by  Page,  p.  1.) 

Having  penetrated  the  earth  no  deeper  than  here  indi- 
cated, and  having  so  little  knowledge  of  even  that  which 
we  have  seen,  we  have  not,  from  this  source,  the  first  ele- 
ments upon  which  to  build  a  sound  and  reliable  scheme  of 
doctrine.  The  whole  theory  founded  by  geologists  upon 
what  they  claim  as  the  indications  of  this  science  as  to  the 
process  of  the  formation  of  the  globe,  and  the  age  of  the 
world,  is  utterly  absurd  and  absolutely  untenable.  The  re- 
sort to  learned  technicalities  and  labored  classifications  in 
naming  and  arranging  the  materials  and  compositions  of 
the  globe  for  indicating  the  stages  of  the  earth's  growth  up 
to  its  present  condition,  is  so  utterly  futile  it  is  wonderful 
that  men  claiming  the  study  of  science  as  their  occupation 
should  be  guilty  of  such.  The  learned  parade  made  over 
the  relations  and  positions  of  strata,  minerals,  metals,  rocks, 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  17 

sands,  and  soils,  so  far  as  any  thing  to  be  proved  by  these 
is  concerned,  is  the  emptiest  nonsense  engaging  human  at- 
tention. The  least  reflection  will  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  existence  and  relations  and  positions  of  strata, 
minerals,  metals,  rocks,  sands,  and  soils,  do  not  reveal  any 
thing  pertaining  to  the  growth  and  age  of  the  world.  Is  it 
true  that  the  granite  is  found  under  the  old  red  sandstone, 
and  the  oolite  limestone  above  it,  and  the  alluvial  clay, 
sand,  and  gravel  still  above  that?  If  so,  something  else 
than  the  law  of  evolution  must  account  for  it;  something 
else  than  age  and  process  of  formation  had  to  do  with  the 
positions  and  relations  of  these.  Are  rocks  found  in  one 
position  in  one  section  and  in  another  position  in  another 
range?  Are  metals  and  minerals  found  in  one  part  of  the 
continent  and  not  in  another?  in  one  part  of  a  State  and  not 
in  another  part  of  it?  Something  else  than  the  growth  of 
the  globe  and  the  age  of  the  world  must  account  for  the 
facts  so  discovered.  When  the  gneiss  was  made,  so  were  the 
alluvial  clay,  sand,  gravel,  and  the  vegetable  soils.  Gran- 
ite, lime,  clay,  coal,  vegetables,  gold,  silver,  copper,  iron, 
and  all  the  rest,  were  made  at  once,  when  God  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  earth  and  made  the  dust  of  the  highest 
hills.  These  are  elements,  and  combinations  of  elements, 
which  composed  and  constituted  in  part  the  earth  as  it  w*as 
made  by  God,  and  not  as  it  grewr  of  itself.  God  made  and 
laid  the  elements  in  their  places  originally.  Floods  and 
convulsions  have  torn  and  upheaved  many  of  them  since 
the  creation,  but  still  they  are  the  product  of  the  Divine 
hand,  dating  back  in  their  origin  to  the  beginning. 

Whatever  formations  may  take  place  in  the  present  state 
of  things,  the  effect  could  not  be  the  same  in  the  condition 
which  the  evolutionists  claim  for  the  world  in  its  first  stages 
of  existence,  in  what  they  claim  as  its  first  deposits — in  its 
first  atoms.  It  is  said :  "  The  atmosphere,  which  everywhere 


18  The  Old  tuul  the  New  Man: 


surrounds  the  globe,  is  either  of  itself  the  immediate  cause 
of  numerous  terrestrial  changes,  or  it  is  the  medium  through 
which  they  are  effected."  Again,  it  is  said :  "  The  planetary 
relations  of  the  globe  exert  a  permanent  and,  it  may  be, 
sometimes  a  temporary  and  peculiar  influence  on  the  changes 
which  have  been  effected,  or  are  now  going  forward  on  its 
surface."  ("Elements  of  Geology,"  by  Page,  pp.  31,  32.) 
How,  then,  could  there  be  any  idea  formed  of  the  process 
going  on  when  these  things,  the  globe,  the  atmosphere,  and 
the  planets,  did  not  exist,  drawn  from  what  goes  on,  now 
that  they  do  exist,  under  their  influence? 

The  finding  and  parading  of  the  foot-prints  of  birds  and 
animals  in  coals  and  sands  and  rocks,  as  evidence  of  evolu- 
tion, is  about  equal  to  a  child  sitting  and  imagining  the 
clouds  turning  into  horses  and  chariots,  landscapes  and 
mansions. 

Even  upon  the  supposition  that  the  earth  has  developed 
its  strata,  and  grown  from  the  smallest  original  deposits  or 
atoms  to  its  present  form  and  size,  how  did  the  sun  and 
moon  and  stars  come  into  being?  Is  there  any  thing  in 
what  is  claimed  as  the  geological  manifestations  of  the  earth 
which  can  account  for  the  existence  of  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars?  What  geologists  would  answer  to  this  question  we 
cannot  tell.  Mr.  Hugh  Miller,  however,  says  this  much: 
"Of  the  period  during  which  the  two  great  lights  of  the 
earth,  with  the  other  heavenly  bodies,  became  visible  from 
the  earth's  surface,  we  need  expect  to  find  no  record  in  the 
rocks."  He  seems  to  hold  to  the  idea  that  the  sun  and 
moon  and  other  heavenly  bodies  existed  previous  to  the 
fourth  day,  or  what  he  calls  a  period,  but  were  concealed, 
and  were  simply  manifested,  not  made;  on  the  fourth  day. 
But  if  the  rocks  contain  no  record  on  the  subject,  what 
can  he  know  about  it? 

It  is  sometimes  asked,  "  How  did  the  light  exist  before 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  '  19 


the  fourth  day,  when  the  sun  was  made?"  We  ask,  How 
did  the  world,  on  the  principles  of  evolution,  evolve  and 
develop  without  light  and  without  the  sun?  And  there  is 
the  same  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  existence  of  light 
on  the  theory  of  lengthened  periods  without  the  sun  that 
there  is  on  the  theory  of  literal  days.  We  know  that  light 
was  created  on  the  first  day  and  the  sun  was  created  on  the 
fourth  day.  So  light  did  exist,  as  distinguished  from  dark- 
ness, three  days  before  the  sun  was  made.  The  same  meth- 
od of  accounting  for  the  existence  of  light  from  the  first 
to  the  fourth  period  without  the  sun,  will  suffice  to  account 
for  its  existence  from  the  first  to  the  fourth  literal  day  with- 
out the  sun. 

That  Moses  means  literal  days,  and  not  something  else, 
by  the  six  days  mentioned  in  connection  with  creation,  can 
be  established  by  a  sound  interpretation  and  definition  of 
the  history  he  gives  and  the  language  he  uses.  In  the  first 
place,  he  gives  a  literal  history  of  the  creation.  It  is  no 
panoramic  view  which  he  exhibits.  It  is  held  by  more 
than  one  author  that  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  can  be 
reconciled  with  the  facts  of  science  only  by  regarding  it  as 
a  record  of  appearances.  Mr.  Hugh  Miller  maintains  this, 
and  that  the  revelation  made  to  Moses  concerning  the  heav- 
ens and  the  earth,  and  by  him  recorded  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis,  was  not  conveyed  "as  a  piece  of  narrative  dic- 
tated" to  him,  but  that  it  was  "conveyed  by  a  succession 
of  sublime  visions."  And  he  calls  it,  all  along,  "  The  Mo- 
saic vision  of  creation,"  "  The  Mosaic  drama  of  creation." 
Insanity  and  suicide  are  fit  endings  to  such  sacrilegious 
treatment  of  the  divine  record.  It  was  no  mere  drama, 
no  mere  vision.  God  did  in  reality  reveal  and  dictate  by 
inspiration  to  Moses  the  record  which  he  makes  of  creation. 
The  record  has  all  the  elements  of  a  real  history,  narrating 
the  real  fact  and  occurrence  of  creation.  If  the  account 


20  The  Old  <m<l  the  X,  w 


of  creation  here  given  is  nothing  but  the  vagaries  of  a  vis- 
ion, the  panoramic  paintings  of  a  drama,  so  we  ruay  say  of 
the  accounts  of  the  flood,  the  call  of  Abraham,  the  bond- 
age of  Israel  in  Egypt,  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea,  the 
journeyings  and  transactions  in  the  wilderness,  and  all  the 
rest. 

The  only  legitimate  interpretation  of  the  language  and 
terms  used  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  creation  by 
Moses  justifies  the  conclusion  that  he  means  literal  da  vs. 
The  "beginning,"  referring  to  time  as  distinguished  from 
eternity;  the  "darkness"  distinguished  from  "light,"  and 
called  "night;"  "light"  distinguished  from  "darkness,"  and 
called  "  day  ;  "  the  "  evening  and  the  nlbrning,"  distinguished 
as  the  "first  day"  and  the  "second  day,"  etc.,  all,  singly  and 
in  the  whole,  bear  us  down  to  the  one  conclusion  —  all  reveal 
and  designate  literal  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each,  days 
marked  by  the  diurnal  revolutions  of  the  earth.  There 
was  nothing  which  pointed  to  any  other  motions,  revolu- 
tions, or  agencies,  as  producing,  measuring,  and  dividing 
time  and  days,  but  those  that  produce,  measure,  and  divide 
days  such  as  we  now  understand  by  days  of  twenty-four 
hours.  There  were  no  revolutions  of  the  earth  to  mark  in- 
definite periods  of  time.  There  are  none  such  now,  and 
there  is  no  evidence  that  any  such  ever  existed.  And  as 
no  such  revolutions  ever  existed  in  the  universe,  it  is  the 
sum  of  all  folly  to  think  and  talk  of  such  days  or  periods  be- 
ing meant  by  the  inspired  historian.  It  is  evident  that  at 
the  first,  or  beginning,  there  was  that  which  marked  and 
divided  the  literal  day,  just  as  there  is  now,  and  as  there 
was  in  the  time  of  Moses.  Nothing  in  contravention  of 
this  idea  can  be  found  either  in  the  divine  revelation  or  the 
works  of  nature. 

There  are  some  places  in  the  Scriptures  where  the  term 
"day"  designates  "time"  in  the  sense  of  seasons  or  occa- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  21 

sious,  and  it  is  quite  extensive  in  its  reference;  but  there 
are  many  other  places  where  the  term  "day"  is  definite, 
naming  a  literal  day,  and  where  it  can  have  no  other  refer- 
ence. Leviticus  xxiii.  32,  34  may  be  given  as  an  example : 
"It  shall  be  unto  you  a  Sabbath  of  rest,  and  ye  shall  afflict 
your  souls;  in  the  ninth  day  of  the  month  at  even,  from 
even  unto  even,  shall  ye  celebrate  your  Sabbath.  .  .  .  The 
fifteenth  day  of  this  seventh  month  shall  be  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  for  seven  days  unto  the  Lord." 

The  argument  upon  the  question  of  literal  days  is  not 
complete  without  a  reference  to  the  history  and  institution 
of  the  Sabbath-day.  One  thing  is  beyond  question :  If  the 
Decalogue  means  literal  days  where  it  enjoins,  "Six  days 
shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work ;  but  the  seventh  day 
is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God;  in  it  thou  shalt  not 
do  any  work,"  then  it  means  literal  days  when  it  says: 
"For  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea, 
and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day ;  where- 
fore the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath-day,  and  hallowed  it." 
The  Church  of  God  has  understood  from  the  time  of  the 
creation  that  the  Sabbath-day  is  a  literal  day — that  the 
week  is  made  up  of  seven  literal  days.  Why  enjoin  the 
observance  of  one  literal  day  in  seven  as  a  Sabbath,  and 
enforce  it  with  a  declaration  that  God  made  the  heaven  and 
the  earth  in  six  indefinite  periods?  What  force  could  it 
have?  What  connection  would  there  be  in  the  two?  None 
whatever.  Moses,  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  using 
the  term  "day"  in  the  identical  sense  which  he  attaches  to 
it  in  the  first  chapter,  and  still  speaking  of  the  work  o? 
creation,  says:  "And  on  the  seventh  day  God  ended  his 
work  which  he  had  made;  and  he  rested  on  the  seventh 
day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made.  And  God 
blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it;  because  that  in 
it  he  had  rested  from  all  his  work  which  God  created  and 


22  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

made."  And  then  in  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  at  different  places,  Moses  says:  "In  six  days  the  Lord 
made  heaven  and  earth,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  rested." 
The  whole  question  is  here  settled  upon  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures  themselves.  So  long  as  one  day  in  seven  is 
retained  and  observed  in  the  Church  of  God  as  a  holy  day 
of  rest,  so  long  will  the  creation  of  the  world  in  six  days 
by  God  be  kept  sacredly  before  the  minds  of  men.  So 
long  as  the  holy  Sabbath  here  carries  the  mind  forward  to 
a  coming  rest  of  consummated  bliss  in  the  presence  of  God, 
so  long  will  it  carry  the  mind  back  to  the  time  of  its  sacred 
origin  when  the  hand  of  God  completed  the  work  of  crea- 
tion, and  rested  on  the  seventh  day  c#  time. 

It  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  those  who  advocate  the 
speculations  of  geologists  to  assert  that  he  who  rejects  these 
theories  of  theirs  and  maintains  the  doctrine  of  literal  days, 
and  a  chronology  of  four  thousand  years  from  the  creation 
to  the  birth  of  Christ,  sacrifices  thereby  whatever  reputa- 
tion for  knowledge  he  has,  and  that,  justly  deserving  the 
contempt  of  all  intelligent  people,  he  should  be  expelled 
from  literary  and  scientific  circles,  and  consigned  to  obliv- 
ion. But  it  appears  to  us  that  he  who  is  engaged  in  teach- 
ing.these  scriptural  doctrines  of  literal  days,  and  a  definite 
chronology,  is  as  worthy  of  consideration  and  is  in  prox- 
imity to  as  many  avenues  of  light  as  the  scientist  whose 
sole  performance  "is  to  resolve  abstractions  into  one  anoth- 
er." And  it  is  not  altogether  unnecessary  to  remind  scien- 
tific gentlemen  of  the  fact  that  the  Church  of  God  does  at  this 
very  hour  set  forth  in  all  her  literature  and  standard  theol- 
ogy the  doctrine  that  the  world  was  created  in  six  literal 
days  four  thousand  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  She 
is  settled  and  fixed  upon  these  points.  She  has  never  yet 
thought  of  convening  a  council  for  the  purpose  of  changing 
her  standards  or  revoking  her  teachings  upon  these  doc- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  23 

trines.  She  comes  before  the  world  with  her  standards  con- 
taining one  uniform  system  upon  these  points.  All,  from 
her  catechisms  in  which  she  teaches  the  children  committed 
to  her  care  up  to  the  huge  volumes  of  systematic  divinity, 
avow  the  simple  doctrine  of  creation  in  six  literal  days, 
and  the  date  of  the  creation  at  four  thousand  years  before 
Christ. 

It  is  a  little  ludicrous  to  see  men  assuming  to  be  scientific 
and  arrogating  to  themselves  such  wisdom  as  to  ridicule  the 
Church  of  God  for  ignorance.  With  the  poet  we  ask: 

What  is  philosophy,  if  it  impart 
Irreverence  for  the  Deity,  or  teach 
A  mftrtal  man  to  set  his  judgment  up 
Against  his  Maker's  will? 

The  chronology  of  the  Bible  establishes  beyond  all  ques- 
tion the  period  of  four  thousand  years  as  the  length  of  time 
from  the  creation  to  the  advent  of  Christ.  It  gives  the 
creation  of  Adam  at  the  beginning  of  time  on  the  sixth 
clay,  and  then  from  Adam  traces  the  generations,  giving  the 
exact  number  of  years  of  each  on  down  to  Noah,  and  from 
Noah  to  Abraham,  and  from  Abraham  on  to  David,  and 
on  to  Christ,  and  from  Christ  back  through  these  genera- 
tions to  Adam  and  to  God,  as  Adam  was  the  created  son  of 
God. 

That  God  could  create  this  magnificent  and  complicated 
world  in  six  days  gives  us  a  conception  of  the  grandeur  of 
his  power  and  the  comprehension  and  vastness  of  his  wis- 
dom. We  may  rejoice  in  his  testimony  when  he  says:  "I 
have  made  the  earth,  and  created  man  upon  it;  I,  even  my 
hands,  have  stretched  out  the  heavens,  and  all  their  host 
have  I  commanded."  The  whole  universe  is  a  creation  by 
God,  not  an  emanation  from  God. 


24  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


CHAPTER  II, 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN. 

OD  in  the  beginning  created  man;  male  and  female 
created  he  them.  He  created  Adam  and  Eve,  a  sin- 
gle pair.  From  these  two  have  proceeded "  all  the  race. 
From  Adam  have  sprung  all  the  nations  of  men  that  dwell 
on  the  earth.  God  did  not  create  a  plurality  of  races  of 
men.  He  did  not  continue  creating,  bat,  making  a  single 
pair  in  the  beginning,  he  ceased  from  the  specific  work  of 
creating;  and  this  pair,  Adam  and  Eve,  propagated  their 
race  which  was  seminally  in  them.  Every  thing  in  the 
works  of  God  which  has  life  of  any  sort  in  it  has  the  power 
of  propagating  its  kind  under  certain  laws  which  God  has 
prescribed.  Plants  and  trees,  animals,  fishes,  and  fowls,  all 
have  a  sort  of  life  inherently  pertaining  to  them,  and  they 
all  propagate  and  perpetuate  their  kind.  Not  that  they 
evolve  out  of  themselves  a  higher  order  of  being  and  of 
life,  but  they  each  propagate  and  perpetuate  their  own  kind 
upon  the  same  scale  of  being  which  they  had  in  the  begin- 
ning. 

This  is  manifestly  true  of  man.  When  God  made  man 
he  made  him  male  and  female,  and  said  unto  them:  "Be 
fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue 
it."  This  injunction  was  imposed  in  view  of  man's  capac- 
ity to  comply  with  it;  or,  if  you  will  call  it  a  permission  in- 
stead of  an  injunction,  it  was  given  in  the  same  view  of  the 
case,  and  with  reference  to  his  capacity  to  enjoy  it.  The 
observation  of  every  generation  attests  that  the  law  of  prop- 
agation is  the  law  of  man's  being,  and  that  herein  are  found 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  25 

the  mode  and  manner  of  the  perpetuation  and  multiplica- 
tion of  his  race.  By  the  law  of  procreation  every  individ- 
ual of  every  nation  and  of  every  generation  has  proceeded 
from  Adam,  the  first  man.  That  all  men  have  descended 
by  propagation  from  Adam  and  Eve  is  attested  by  the  text : 
"Adam  called  his  wife's  name  Eve,  because  she  was  the 
mother  of  all  living."  Adam  is  so  named  not  only  because 
he  is  from  and  of  the  earth,  but  he  is  so  called  as  man,  the 
head  and  progenitor  of  the  race.  He  is  also  called  in  the 
"  Scriptures  "  the  first  man,"  as  the  one  from  whom  all  otfier 
men  have  proceeded.  "Man"  is  a  term  used  also  in  refer- 
ring to  the  whole  race,  including  Adam  and  his  posterity. 
In  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  is  found  this  language :  "  Since 
the  day  that  God  created  man  upon  the  earth,"  as  a  general 
reference  to  man  in  his  succeeding  generations  from  Adam, 
and  to  the  fact  that  in  Adam  God  created  man — all  men 
who  live  on  the  earth  in  their  succeeding  generations.  "And 
as  I  may  so  say,  Levi  also,  who  receiveth  tithes,  paid  tithes 
in  Abraham.  For  he  was  yet  in  the  loins  of  his  father 
when  Melchizedek  met  him."  So  we  may  say  all  the  gen- 
erations of  men  were  in  the  loins  of  their  father  Adam  when 
he  was  made.  God  "  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations 
of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth."  All  men, 
since  Adam,  have  come  into  being  in  their  individual  ex- 
istence by  propagation,  and  not  otherwise. 

This  has  not,  however,  been  conceded  by  all  theologians 
in  the  past,  so  far  as  the  soul  is  concerned.  Christian 
writers  of  by-gone  ages  have  maintained  different  and  con- 
flicting theories  upon  the  origin  of  the  soul  of  man.  The 
preexistence  of  the  soul,  the  creation  and  infusion  of  the 
soul  at  the  time  of  birth,  and  the  traduction  of  the  soul 
with  the  body,  have,  as  points  of  doctrine,  all  had  their  advo- 
cates; and  these  points  of  doctrine  have  served  some  particu- 
lar purpose  in  the  peculiar  creed  of  their  several  advocates. 


26  The  Old  and  Ihe  New  Man: 

« ; 

Man  has  a  body,  and  he  has  a  soul,  but  whether  in  these 
we  have  all  the  constituent  natures  of  man  has  been  ques- 
tioned. Some,  in  discoursing  upon  man,  have  maintained 
the  theory  of  trichotomy,  insisting  that  man  has  a  body, 
a  soul,  and  a  spirit,  and  that  there  are  certain  passages  of 
Scripture  which  are  inexplicable  upon  any  other  hypoth- 
esis. The  principal  passages  adduced  in  favor  of  this  hy- 
pothesis are  the  following:  "And  I  pray  God  your  Avhole 
spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (1  Thess.  v.  23.)  "For 
the  word  of  God  is  quick,  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than 
any  two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder 
of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a 
discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart."  (Heb. 
iv.  12.) 

One  author,  the  Rev.  J.  B.  Heard,  commenting  upon 
this  last  passage,  says:  "That  which  the  marrow  is  to  the 
joints,  that  the  spirit  is  to  the  soul.  As  marrow  is  flesh 
within  flesh,  so  the  spirit  is  a  soul  within  the  soul.  .  . 
Any  sword  will  pierce  the  soul,  but  it  is  only  the  sword  of 
the  Spirit  that  can  pierce  and  divide  between  soul  and  spir- 
it." This  is  an  invention  of  Mr.  Heard,  and  by  no  means 
an  idea  of  the  scripture  before  us.  It  is  not  true  that  any 
sword  will  pierce  the  soul.  A  sword  made  of  steel  cannot 
pierce  the  soul,  though  it  might  pierce  and  wound  the  body. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  we  think  these  passages  here 
taken  from  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  and 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  can  be  explicated  on  the 
hypothesis  of  dichotomy.  Dichotomy  is  the  doctrine  every- 
where taught  in  the  Scripture*.  We  may  linger  here  long 
enough  to  remark  that  in  the  text  taken  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Thessalonians  the  apostle  means  to  include  the  whole 
man,  and  he  does  include  him  in  his  entirety,  naming  spirit, 
soul,  and  body,  about  as  we  would  include  him  in  his  indi- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  27 

viduality  and  entirety  in  naming  him  in  his  intellectual, 
moral,  and  physical  being.  We  would  never  think  that  we 
were  teaching  trichotomy  when  naming  together  the  intel- 
lectual, moral,  and  physical  faculties  and  capabilities  of 
man.  It  is  the  purpose  of  the  text  taken  from  Hebrews  to 
show  the  power  and  office  of  the  word  of  God  in  detecting 
the  most  secret  thoughts,  intentions,  and  desires  of  the  man. 
This,  and  nothing  more. 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  Luke  is  found  this  text :  "  Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with 
all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy 
mind ;  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  Analyzing  this  text, 
and  interpreting  it  upon  the  principles  adopted  by  trichoto- 
mists,  it  would  as  clearly  substantiate  tetrachotomy  as  do  the 
texts  from  Thessalonians  and  Hebrews  trichotomy.  If 
these  teach  a  threefold  nature  in  man,  this  teaches  at  least  a 
fourfold  nature.  Here  is  heart,  soul,  strength,  and  mind. 
And  it  is  intended  to  express  the  fact  that  the  man  in  his 
entire  capabilities  should  be  engaged  in  the  love  and  service 
of  God.  The  desires  of  the  heart,  the  affections  of  the  soul, 
the  strength  of  the  body,  and  thoughts  and  reflections  of 
the  mind,  are  all  comprehended  in  the  injunctions  of  this 
text.  Heart,  soul,  and  mind  are  terms  somewhat  synony- 
mous, and  are  so  used  in  the  Scriptures  in  different  places, 
though  they  are  all  used  here  in  this  particular  instance, 
and  perhaps  with  a  difference  of  signification.  If  this  text 
does  not  teach  tetrachotomy,  no  more  do  the  passages  from 
Thessalonians  and  Hebrews  constitute  a  basis  upon  which 
to  build  such  a  fabric  as  the  tripartite  doctrine. 

Dichotomy,  we  repeat,  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  the 
Scriptures.  "And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust 
of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of 
life;  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  (Gen.  ii.  7.)  Here 
are  agent  and  material,  action  and  result.  By  God,  out  of 


28  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

the  dust  of  the  ground,  a  body  is  formed ;  by  God,  through 
the  act  of  breathing,  life  is  imparted,  a  soul  is  made,  and 
there  is  a  living  being,  having  a  body  and  a  soul.  This 
man  is  not  an  emanation  from  God,  but  a  creature  made  by 
God  —  the  corporeal  body  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
the  incorporeal  soul  out  of  nothing.  The  constituent  nat- 
ures of  man  are  presented  in  a  striking  manner  in  the  fol- 
lowing scripture:  "And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body, 
but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul;  but  rather  fear  him  which, 
is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell."  (Matt.  x. 
28.)  Every  creature  is  simply  corporeal,  or  simply  spiritual, 
or  composed  of  the  two  essences,  matter  and  spirit.  Trees 
consist  purely  of  matter;  angels,  purely  of  spirit;  and  man 
consists  of  matter  and  spirit.  Matter  and  spirit  may  unite, 
but  cannot  mix,  and  between  the  two  there  is  no  mean ;  and 
so  man  cannot  be  possessed  of  more  than  a  body  and  a  soul. 
The  Rev.  J.  B.  Heard  teaches  that  the  nature  of  man's 
soul  is  found  "  midway  between  matter  and  spirit."  This 
is  too  absurd  to  merit  refutation. 

The  refutation  of  trichotomy  may  be  found  in  its  own 
contradictions  and  absurdities,  and  therefore  we  will  ex- 
hibit here  a  few  of  these.  Heard,  in  his  "Tripartite  Nat- 
ure of  Man,"  from  which  we  have  already  quoted,  says: 
"The  soul,  which  we  may  here  provisionally  describe  as  the 
ego,  or  the  nexus,  between  matter  and  mind,  is  the  meeting 
point  between  the  higher  and  the  lower  natures  in  man. 
.  .  .  It  [the  Bible]  lays  down  for  our  instruction  the 
two  natures  of  man — the  animal  and  the  spiritual — and 
then  describes  nephesh  as  the  union  point  between  the  two. 
Man  became  a  living  soul  in  the  sense  that  .his  uephesh,  or 
self,  is  the  meeting  point,  or  tertium  quid,  of  these  two  nat- 
ures, body  and  spirit."  (Pages  47,  48.)  This  is  so  unphilo- 
sophical  and  so  unscriptural  that  it  appears  strange  to  us 
that  any  intelligent  mind  could  consent  to  avow  it  and  send 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  29 

it  forth  in  permanent  form.  The  Bible  nowhere  speaks  of 
the  soul  as  a  third  something  between  matter  and  mind — 
nowhere  speaks  of  the  soul  as  the  union  point  between  the 
two  different  and  contrary  natures.  Matter  and  spirit  can- 
not be  .so  mixed,  or  intermingled,  or  bound  together,  as  to 
make  a  distinct  or  additional  nature  in  man,  or  in  any  other 
being.  The  material  and  the  immaterial — the  body  and 
the  spirit — may  be  so  united  as  to  constitute  being,  as  to 
constitute  individuality.  We  may  say  these  united  consti- 
tute one  person,  but  they  cannot  be  so  united  as  to  consti- 
tute a  third  and  distinct  nature.  The  Bible  does  present 
man  as  a  living  being,  as  a  living  soul  in  his  entirety,  but 
nowhere  presents  the  idea  of  matter  and  spirit  mixing  and 
mingling  and  forming  a  third  nature,  as  oxygen  and  hy- 
drogen gases  unite  and  form  water. 

And  again  Mr.  Heard  writes:  "We  have  seen  from 
Scripture  that  the  distinction  between  body,  soul,  and  spirit 
is  real,  and  not  verbal  only."  (Page  115.)  "  The  trichotomy 
is  three  natures  in  one  person."  (Page  120.)  "  Man  has  three 
natures  in  one  person."  (Page  138.)  The  distinction,  he  in- 
sists, between  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  is  real,  so  much  so  that 
there  are  three  natures  in  man,  and  yet  this  same  author 
has  written  the  following  sentence:  "The  trichotomy  of 
Scripture  does  not,  then,  imply  the  union  of  three  separa- 
ble and  distinct  natures  in  man."  (Page  118.)  Here,  then, 
he  contradicts  himself.  On  one  page  he  says  there  are  three 
natures  in  man,  and  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture; 
on  another  page  he  says  there  are  not  three  natures  in  man, 
and  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture.  But  hear  him 
again  on  another  point:  "As  God  is  a  Spirit,  so  the  spirit 
in  man  is  that  which,  in  an  eminent  and  peculiar  sense, 
comes  from  God.  God,  as  we  shall  see  in  discussing  the 
question  of  creationism,  is  the  creator  ex  traduce  of  the  ani- 
mal and  intellectual  part  of  every  man  naturally  born  into 


30  The  Old  and  Hie  New  Man : 

the  world.  Not  so  with  the  spirit,  it  comes  from  God,  and 
is  of  God.  Let  us  not  shrink  from  using  the  expression 
that  it  proceeds  from  God,  not  by  creation,  but  by  emana- 
tion. But  the  spirit  in  man  is  divine,  consubstantial  Avith 
God,  Avho  is  the  Father  of  spirits,  as  our  bodies  of  flesh  are 
consubstantial  with  those  of  the  parents  of  our  flesh."  (Page 
103.)  This  is  the  theology  founded  upon  trichotomy.  Here 
it  is  said  the  spirit  comes  from  God,  is  consubstantial  with 
God,  is  divine,  is,  in  a  word,  God.  Bearing  this  in  mind, 
let  us  look  at  what  he  says  further  about  this  pneuma,  or 
spirit:  "Thus  we  identify  conscience  with  the  remains  of 
the  pneuma  in  fallen  man."  (Page  159.)  Having  already 
said  that  the  spirit  in  man  is  God,  here  he  says  the  spirit 
in  man  is  conscience.  The  Apostle  Paul,  in  writing  to  his 
son  Timothy,  speaks  of  some  "  having  their  conscience  seared 
with  a  hot  iron."  Now  put  these  together.  The  spirit  is 
conscience,  and  the  spirit  is  God,  and  the  conscience  is  God. 
The  conscience  in  some  is  seared.  Therefore,  when  the 
conscience  is  seared,  God  'is  seared ! 

But  let  us  follow  this  author  a  little  farther,  still  keeping 
in  mind  that  he  says  that  the  spirit  in  man  is  divine — is 
God.  Again  he  writes:  "The  mystefy  of  human  nature 
seems  to  lie  in  this,  that  men  are  born  into  the  world  with 
a  living  body  and  soul,  but  with  a  dead,  or  dormant,  spir- 
it." (Page  201.)  "  The  pneuma  in  the  unregenerate  man  is, 
as  we  have  seen  before,  a  dead,  or  dormant,  capacity."  (Page 
203.)  This  spirit,  he  here  says,  is  dead,  or  dormant.  He 
has  said  this  spirit  is  divine,  is  God.  So,  according  to  this 
trichotomist,  God  is,  dormant,  God  is  dead !  Alas  for  this 
man's  system !  He  has  sought  for  a  psychology  consistent 
with  a  proper  theology,  and  he  has  found  it  in  a  system 
which  involves  the  sacrilegious  idea  that  God  is  dead ! 

But  let  us  hear  him  once  more:  "When  a  man's  spirit 
is  acted  upon  by  the  quickening  Spirit,  and  is  really  regen- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  31 


crated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc..  (Page  206.)  "  But  the 
awakened  conscience,  the  spirit,  or  pneuma,  as  we  must 
now  call  it,  so  soon  as  it  is  quickened  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
will  not  palter  with  itself  any  longer."  (Page  208.)  "Re- 
generation, then,  is  the  quickening  of  this  pneuma,  and 
sanctification  is  the  carrying  on  of  that  which  conversion 
began."  (Page  218.)  So  this  pneuma,  or  spirit,  is  conscience, 
and  is  God ;  and  thus  pneuma,  or  God,  is  quickened  and  re- 
generated, and  is  quickened  and  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  So  God  is  quickened,  awakened,  and  regenerated 
by  God !  These  are  some  of  the  absurdities  of  trichotomy, 
and  are  enough  to  refute  and  forever  condemn  the  theory. 
Here  we  dismiss  trichotomy,  feeling  assured  that  the  Bible 
is  clearly  against  it,  and  in  favor  of  dichotomy. 

Various,  long,  and  labored  have  been  the  efforts  to  prove 
man  complete  without  a  soul.  Systems  of  philosophy,  re- 
plete with  learned  phraseology,  have  been  invented  and 
adopted  to  portray  man  to  himself  entire  without  a  soul. 
Hylozoism  and  Materialism,  with  other  like  theories,  have 
been  brought  into  requisition,  with  their  speculations  about 
organic  life,  laws  of  association  and  vibration,  to  account 
for  man's  nature,  capabilities,  and  achievements  without  al- 
lowing him  a  soul.  But  none  of  these  systems  and  inven- 
tions can  answer  the  purpose  for  which  they  have  been 
brought  forward.  They  are  utterly  futile  in  this  behalf. 
Until  philosophers  can  compute  the  number  of  inches  or  of 
pounds  in  a  thought,  and  reckon  the  longitude  and  latitude 
of  an  affection,  and  locate  the  geography  of  a  desire,  none 
of  their  speculations  will  suffice  to  account  for  the  achieve- 
ments of  man  on  the  hypothesis  that  he  has  no  soul.  Man 
is  heterogeneous  as  well  as  homogeneous.  It  is  as  mani- 
festly true  that  man  has  a  soul  which  reasons  and  loves  as 
it  is  that  he  has  a  body  which  can  be  handled,  measured, 
and  weighed.  The  Bible  has  taught  us  the  science  of  hu- 


32  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

roan  nature,  and  everywhere,  by  assumption,  concession, 
implication,  declaration,  and  precept,  teaches  that  man  has 
a  soul,  though  invisible,  yet  real,  immortal,  and  eternal.  It 
is  unnecessary  to  accumulate  here  a  list  of  texts  in  proof 
of  the  existence  of  the  human  soul.  It  would  be  rather 
difficult  to  find  a  place  in  the  sacred  record  where  the  doc- 
trine is  not  prominently  presented.  Stephen,  when  dying, 
said,  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit,"  The  rich  man  and 
Lazarus,  in  their  souls,  when  dead,  went  each  to  a  place  of 
abode,  and  one  Avas  happy  and  the  other  tormented. 

The  question  of  the  origin  of  the  soul  is  now  before  us, 
and  must  claim  our  consideration.  The  preexistence  of  the 
soul  has  entered  into  the  discussions  which  have  engaged 
attention  in  connection  with  the  question  of  its  origin.  It 
has  been  said  by  different  authors,  and  by  those  who  ought 
to  know,  that  Origen,  who  wrote  in  the  third  century, 
taught  "that  the  souls  of  men  had  existed  in  a  previous 
state,  and  that  their  imprisonment  in  material  bodies  was  a 
punishment  for  sins  which  they  had  then  committed."  It 
is  in  his  De  Principiis  that  he  is  said  to  have  taught  this 
doctrine.  In  the  English  version  which  we  have  of  this 
work  we  do  not  find  this  doctrine  taught  in  any  tangible 
form ;  at  least,  we  find  nothing  which  we  Could  not  explain 
upon  a  different  hypothesis.  It  is  said,  however,  that  the 
Greek  text  of  most  of  this*  work  has  perished,  and  that  the 
Latin  version  of  it,  which  is  a  translation  by  Rufinus,  a 
great  admirer  of  Origen,  is  not  reliable,  as  Rufinus  altered 
many  of  Origen's  expressions.  But  this  doctrine  of  the 
preexistence  of  souls  is  not  tenable  from  a  Christian  stand- 
point. It  is  allied  to  the  superstitious  notions  of  heathens 
and  idolaters.  It  is  akin  to  the  Buddhist  notions  of  me- 
tempsychosis. The  idea  of  a  wandering  exile  vagrancy  is 
the  underlying  idea  of  this  theory  of  preexistence.  -It  can- 
not be  consonant  with  reason  for  a  soul  existing  from  be- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  33 

fore  the  beginning  of  creation  to  enter  into  a  body  of  yes- 
terday. 'A  soul  made  and  existing  in  a  personal  entity, 
having  no  kindred  relation  to  any  other  being,  cannot  be  in 
essence  or  otherwise  allied  to  the  human  race — cannot  be 
in  any  way  related  to  the  human  family,  or  implicated  in 
their  destiny.  Such  a  thought  is  the  climax  of  all  folly. 

Creationism,  a  doctrine  which  teaches  that  by  a  distinct 
and  special  act  God  creates  and  infuses  the  soul  into  the 
body  at  the  time  of  birth,  is  obnoxious  to  the  same  objec- 
tions which  lie  against  the  doctrine  of  the  preexisteuce  of 
the  soul.  Who  first  advocated  this  doctrine  is  to  us  un- 
known. Dr.  Shedd,  after  telling  us,  in  his  "History  of 
Christian  Doctrine,"  that  this  theory  was  held  in  the  pa- 
tristic period,  states  that  it  "  was  the  dominant  one  in  the 
Eastern  Church,  and  found  advocates  in  the  Western." 
He  also  says  Jerome  in  his  day  remarked  "that  creationism 
is  the  true  Church  doctrine."  Again,  he  says  that  "Hilary 
of  Pictavium  is  the  most  explicit  advocate  of  creationism 
in  the  West."  Mr.  Heard,  in  his  "Tripartite  Nature  of 
Man,"  says:  "Augustine,  however,  took  the  side  of  crea- 
tionism. Augustine's  decision  in  favor  of  creationism  set 
the  question  at  rest  for  centuries.  The  traducianist  theory 
fell  in  consequence  under  a  cloud,  and  was  almost  reputed 
a  heresy  in  the  Middle  Ages."  Dr.  Shedd,  however,  in  di- 
rect conflict  with  Mr.  Heard,  says:  "The  theologian  who 
contributed  most  to  the  currency  and  establishment  of  tra- 
ducianisrn  was  Augustine."  He  immediately  adds:  "And 
yet  this  thinker,  usually  so  explicit  and  decided,  even  upon 
speculative  points,  nowhere  in  his  works  formally  adopts 
the  theory  itself."  The  truth  is,  upon  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  the  soul,  Augustine  nowhere  adopts  any  theory, 
and  refuses  to  take  any  position  whatever  upon  the  subject, 
except,  perhaps,  he  opposes  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistence 
of  the  soul,  and  denies  that  the  soul  is  of  the  essence  of 
3 


34  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

God.  Here  are  a  few  extracts  from  his  work  on  "The  Soul 
and  its  Origin."  Addressing  Renatus  in  reply  to  what  Vin- 
centius  Victor  had  written  on  the  subject,  he  says  of  Victor : 
"To  avoid  this  [running  into  the  heresy  of  Pelagius],  how 
much  better  is  it  for  him  to  share  my  hesitation  about  the 
soul's  origin ! "  "  He  may  say  that  his  opinion  is  backed 
by  divine  authority  since  he  supposes  that  it  is  by  passages 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  he  proves  that  souls  are  not 
made  by  God  by  way  of  propagation,  but  that  they  are  by 
distinct  acts  of  creation  breathed  afresh  into  each  individ- 
ual. Let  him  prove  this  if  he  can,  and  I  will  allow  that  I 
have  learned  from  him  what  I  was  trying  to  find  out  with 
great  earnestness."  (Page  222.)  "  Wherefore  I  too,  on  my 
side,  say,  concerning  my  soul,  I  have  no  certain  knowledge 
how  it  came  into  my  body,  for  it  was  not  I  who  gave  it  to 
myself.  He  who  gave  it  to  me  knows  whether  he  imparted 
it  to  me  from  my  father,  or  created  it  afresh  for  me,  as  he 
did  for  the  first  man.  But  even  I  shall  know  when  he  him- 
self shall  teach  me,  in  his  own  good  time.  Now,  however, 
I  do  not  know ;  nor  am  I  ashamed,  like  him  [Victor],  to 
confess  my  ignorance  of  what  I  know  not."  (Pages  230, 
231.) 

The  doctrine  of  the  creation  and  infusion  of  the  soul  at 
the  time  of  birth,  as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistcnce 
of  souls,  is  allied  to  the  doctrine  of  individuality  which 
traverses  the  doctrine  of  the  connection  and  unity  of  the 
race.  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  of  one  blood — are  one 
race.  If  the  soul  is  created  and  infused,  instead  of  propa- 
gated, then  the  soul  has  no  relation  to  Adam.  Nothing,  in 
this  event,  could  be  related  to  Adam  except  the  body.  A 
being  belonging  in  part  to  a  race,  and  in  part  a  creature 
belonging  to  no  race,  would  be  an  anomaly  such  as  has  not, 
we  are  persuaded,  yet  appeared  in  the  dominions  of  our 
God. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  35 

This  doctrine  is  also  opposed  to  that  which  lies  at  the 
very  basis  of  things — namely,  that  God,  having  made  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  and  all  things  therein  in  six  days, 
ceased  from  his  work  of  creation,  resting  on  the  seventh 
day,  and  that  no  act  of  immediate  creation  has  since  oc- 
curred therein. 

Traducianisrn,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  teaches  that  the 
soul  is  procreated  together  with  the  body.  The  soul  is  as 
much  the  result  and  product  of  conception  and  birth  as  is 
the  body.  The  whole  man,  the  soul  and  the  body,  is  propa- 
gated. It  is  said  that  Tertullian  was  the  first  who  stated 
and  defended  the  doctrine  of  traducianism  with  distinct- 
ness. This  is,  perhaps,  true  when  we  speak  of  it  as  the 
subject  of  controversy  in  the  time  of  Tertullian.  But  the 
doctrine  of  traducianism  has  been  the  distinct  doctrine  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  of  those  who  rightly  expound  them,  in 
all  ages.  Tertullian  advocates  this  doctrine.  He  expresses 
himself  in  the  following  manner  in  his  treatise,  "  De  Ani- 
ma : "  "  Is  the  substance  of  both  body  and  soul  formed  to- 
gether at  one  and  the  same  time?  or  does  one  of  thejn  pre- 
cede the  other  in  natural  formation?  We  indeed  maintain 
that  both  are  conceived  and  formed  and  perfected  simulta- 
neously, as  well  as  born  together;  and  that  not  a  moment's 
interval  occurs  in  their  conception,  so  that  a  prior  place 
can  be  assigned  to  either."  (Page  474.)  When  it  is  said 
Adam  "  begat  a  son,"  we  are  taught  that  a  child  was  be- 
gotten complete  in  his  individuality,  and  in  the  constituent 
elements  of  his  nature.  And  this  individuality  and  these 
constituent  elements  of  nature  in  Seth,  the  son,  include 
soul  and  body  as  essentially  as  they  include  soul  and  body 
in  Adam,  the  father.  The  existence  of  the  soul  and  body 
of  Seth  was  as  much  the  result  of  the  act  of  begetting  as 
the  existence  of  the  soul  and  body  of  Adam  was  the  result 
of  the  act  of  creation.  When  it  is  said  Adam  "begat  a 


36  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

son  in  his  own  likeness,"  the  procreation  of  the  soul  is 
taught  us,  for  in  the  soul  alone  is  found  the  seat  of  this 
"  likeness."  Unless  you  can  conceive  of  righteousness  and 
unrighteousness  implanted  in  a  corporeal  substance,  you  are 
bound  to  concede  the  procreation  and  existence  of  the  soul 
in  this  case  as  the  constituent  nature  in  which  was  found 
that  moral  likeness  named  in  the  premises. 

The  individual  man,  in  his  oneness  and  being,  is  evidently 
constituted  by  the  union  of  soul  -and  body.  Without  the 
soul  or  without  the  body  we  have  not  the  entire  man.  The 
two,  body  and  soul,  may  be  separated,  but  the  whole  and 
complete  man  is  found  in  the  two  constituting  one  person. 
Hence,  in  referring  to  man  in  his  individuality,  the  Script- 
ure sometimes  names  his  body  and  sometimes  names  his 
soul.  The  Scripture  uses  these  terms,  "body"  and  "soul," 
interchangeably,  as  including  and  referring  to  the  whole 
man.  And  such  passages  as,  "These  are  the  sons  of  Ra- 
chel, which  were  born  to  Jacob;  all  the  souls  were  four- 
teen;" "all  the  souls  that  came  with  Jacob  into  Egypt, 
which  came  out  of  his  loins"  (Gen.  xlvi.),  prove  that  souls 
are  propagated,  are  born.  There  is  no  evading  this  view 
of  the  case,  unless  you  are  prepared  to  say  that  the  soul  is 
a  mere  appendage,  and  not  essentially  a  part  of  man,  and 
that  the  Scriptures  mislead  when  they  speak  of  the  soul  as 
the  man.  "All  souls  are  mine,"  saith  the  Lord  God ;  and 
this  is  as  true,  though  the  soul  is  propagated  along  with 
the  body,  as  though  it  were  created  by  a  direct  act  of  the 
Divine  hand. 

The  causes  operating  in  the  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of 
traducianism  we  shall  not  attempt  to  trace  out.  Some  of 
them  are,  perhaps,  unknown  to  us.  The  reasons  assigned 
for  the  rejection  of  this  doctrine  are,  in  our  judgment,  with- 
out foundation.  It  is  alleged  that  the  doctrine  of  tradu- 
cianism favors  materialism,  and  is  destructive  of  the  doc- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  37 

trine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  We  cannot  see  that 
the  doctrine  is  chargeable  with  any  such  tendencies  or  re- 
sults. We,  speaking  for  ourselves,  must  say  we  would  not 
be  content  to  abide  in  the  meshes  of  such  sophistry  as  that 
which  charges  that  the  production  of  the  soul,  ex  traduce, 
involves  the  doctrine  of  its  materiality  and  mortality.  If 
Adam  was  a  living,  spiritual,  and  immortal  being,  we  can- 
not see  but  that  he  could  propagate  a  man  like  himself 
having  life,  spirit,  and  immortality.  Whether  man  is  nat- 
urally immortal,  or  whether  immortality  is  a  blessing  be- 
stowed upon  him  from  without,  is  a  question  which  we  find 
no  occasion  to  discuss  here,  inasmuch  as  it  is  really  not  per- 
tinent to  the  question  of  traducianism. 

The  true  doctrine  of  the  origin  of  man  teaches  creation 
and  propagation.  He  was  created  as  a  race  in  and  with 
Adam,  and  propagated  by  and  from  him.  To  this  no  one 
'  can  object.  It  underlies  the  whole  scheme  of  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Men  belong  to  the  race  of  Adam,  have  de- 
scended from  him,  or  they  have  no  relation  to  and  connec- 
tion with  Christ  as  a  Saviour.  Any  man  who  has  not  de- 
scended from  Adam  by  generation  has  no  part  or  interest 
in  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  as  taught  by  the  Son  of  God. 
When  we  give  up  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the  race,  the 
descent  from  Adam,  and  the  fall  of  men  in  and  with  Adam, 
then  we  may  renounce  every  other  doctrine  of  the  gospel 
of  Jesus.  The  whole  gospel  scheme  fails  with  these.  The 
redemption  made  by  Christ  is  a  redemption  for  a  race  cre- 
ated in,  descended  from,  and  fallen  and  sinful  with,  Adam. 


38  The  Old  and  tlie  New  Man 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  NATURAL  AND  MORAL  STATE  WHEREIN  ADAM, 
THE  FIRST  MAN,  WAS  CREATED. 

rT^HE  Divine  Record,  while  teaching  that  man  was  cre- 
-L-  •  ated,  and  while  giving  information  concerning  the 
constituent  elements  of  his  nature,  also  announces  the  nat- 
ural and  moral  state  wherein  he  was  created.  "  So  God 
created  man  in  his  own  image ;  in  the  image  of  God  created 
he  him."  This  is  one  of  the  most  sublime  announcements 
made  in  the  history  of  creation.  Much  has  been  written 
by  different  authors,  and  in  different  ages,  upon  this  text. 
Much  that  has  been  written  in  exposition  thereof  is  inval- 
uable and  true,  while  much  is  not  only  worthless  but  high- 
ly pernicious. 

Man  was  given  dominion  over  the  earth  and  the  creat- 
ures therein ;  howbeit,  this  did  not  constitute  the  image 
in  which  he  was  made.  He  was  created  with  a  body  of 
upright  form  and  well-proportioned  parts,  but  it  was  not  in 
his  physical  form  or  material  body  that  the  image  of  God 
resided.  God  is  not  a  being  of  physical  body  or  material 
parts,  and  therefore  no  image  of  his  could  be  inwrought 
in  these.  Man  was  made  a  living  soul,  and  endowed  with 
reason  and  will,  spirituality  and  immortality.  In  this  soul, 
thus  endowed,  was  the  image  of  God.  Adam  was  a  moral 
being,  and,  as  such,  was  in  the  likeness  of  God.  This  im- 
age consisted — in  part,  at  least — in  knowledge,  righteous- 
ness, and  holiness.  Adam,  when  made,  was  innocent,  but 
innocence  did  not  constitute  the  image  of  God  in  which  he 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  39 

was  created.  God  could  not  make  a  guilty  creature  any 
more  than  he  could  make  an  evfl  and  wicked  creature. 
We  use  the  words  innocent  and  guilty  here  antithetically. 
Innocence  and  guilt  are  antithetical  terms.  Adam  was 
made  morally  good.  He  was  righteous,  and  he  was  holy. 

But  what  is  knowledge?  What  is  righteousness?  What 
is  holiness?  Knowledge  is  not  only  the  power  of  knowing, 
it  is  a  certain  and  correct  perception  of  truth  and  fact. 
Righteousness  is  not  only  conformity  to  divine  law,  it  is 
purity  of  character — purity  of  being.  Holiness  is  per- 
fect purity  of  character — of  nature.  These,  it  is  true,  are 
only  general  definitions  of  these  terms,  but  they  are  accu- 
rate, and  are  sufficiently  specific  for  our  purpose  here.  We 
may  consider  these  definitions,  and  the  terms  defined,  more 
at  length  in  another  place. 

Adam,  at  his  origin,  had  the  faculty,  as  God  had  the 
faculty,  of  knowledge ;  and  he  also  had,  as  God  had,  a  true 
and  correct  knowledge  of  things  as  they  existed.  He,  of 
course,  did  not  have  a  faculty  of  knowledge  equal  in  capac- 
ity with  the  divine  faculty  of  knowledge;  neither  did  he 
have  a  knowledge  equal  in  extent  with  the  divine  knowledge; 
but,  in  their  measure,  both  his  faculty  of  knowledge  and  his 
actual  knowledge  were  perfect.  He  was  not  subject  to  any 
mistakes,  nor  liable  to  any  failures,  because  of  any  defect 
in  knowledge.  He  suffered  from  no  treachery  of  memory 
or  defect  of  judgment.  He  was  morally  upright ;  he  was 
morally  good.  He  had  absolute  holiness,  as  God  had. 
•  When  we  say,  as  we  do  here,  that  Adam  was  holy,  we 
mean  and  say  more  than  that  he  was  free  from  any  bias  to 
evil,  and  that  he  had  the  powers  necessary  to  acquire  holi- 
ness. We  mean  that  he  was  already  holy,  that  he  was 
right  in  the  state  of  all  his  powers.  This  holiness  was  con- 
created  in  him,  was  wrought  into  his  very  nature  when  he 
was  made. 


40  The  Old  and  the  Neie  Man: 

That  Adam  was  created  holy,  as  here  insisted  on,  is  ear- 
nestly and  uniformly  denied  by  Arians,  Socinians,  and  all 
others  who  deny  native  depravity  and  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity.  Enough  from  two  or  three  au- 
thors of  this  class  to  correctly  present  their  positions  on 
this  subject  is  altogether  proper,  and,  in  some  measure,  we 
are  persuaded,  necessary. 

We  will  quote  first  from  a  volume  of  published  sermons 
by  Henry  AV.  Bellows,  minister  of  All-souls  Church,  New 
York.  He  writes:  "But  when  we  are  asked  to  believe 
that  the  first  man — who,  though  fresh  from  the  Creator's 
hands,  and  no  companions  to  misuse  or  tempt  him  aside, 
on  the  first  opportunity  succumbed  in  his  conscience  and  his 
will  before  a  frivolous  temptation — had  a  better  nature 
than  we  have,  a  keener  and  clearer  conscience,  a  more  erect 
and  powerful  will,  we  confess  that  reason  refuses  her  assent. 
Ill  what  respect  did  he  exhibit  any  moral  faculty  superior, 
to  ours?  Of  what  advantage  to  him  was  his  unfallen  nat- 
ure and  his  fresh  and  pure  soul?"  (Page  246.)  "Any  other 
man  in  his  circumstances  would  have  acted  as  he  acted,  and 
every  man  since  has  acted  as  he  acted.  It  was  not,  how- 
ever, Adam's  nature  that  fell,  but  merely  he  himself;  that 
is  to  say,  his  nature  was  no  other  after  his  fall  than  before. 
It  was  no  more  weak  than  before.  For  if  stronger  before 
he  fell  than  since,  how  did  he  yield  so  easily  to  temptation  ? 
What  advantage  did  his  unfallen  nature  give  him?  No! 
Adam's  nature  was  illustrated,  not  changed,  by  his  fall." 
(Page  260.) 

This  writer  teaches  that  Adam's  nature  was  as  weak  and 
imperfect  before  his  fall  as  afterward,  and  that  his  nature 
before  his  fall  was  as  weak  and  imperfect  as  the  nature  of 
other  men  in  their  present  fallen  condition,  and  that  the 
unfallen  nature  of  Adam  was  in  a  state  of  weakness  in 
which  he  could  know  nothing  of  goodness  and  holiness. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  41 

How  much  meaning  he  puts  into  the  sentence,  "Adam's 
nature  was  illustrated,  not  changfti,  by  the  fall!"  Illus- 
trated, not  changed!  This  Mr.  Bellows  actually  teaches, 
on  the  next  page  to  the  one  from  which  the  above  quo- 
tation is  taken,  that  Adam  and  Eve,  in  their  sinlessness, 
did  not  reflect  God's  glory  as  much  as  David  and  Peter, 
and  St.  Augustine  and  Cromwell,  did  in  their  sinfuluess. 

The  next  author  from  whom  we  quote  is  Dr.  A.  T. 
Bledsoe,  who  was,  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  for  some 
years  previous  thereto  had  been,  the  editor  of  the  Southern 
Quarterly  Review.  He  is  the  author  of  two  or  three  dif- 
ferent published  volumes,  among  them  a  volume  bearing 
the  title,  "A  Theodicy."  This  work  is  the  apple  of  his 
eye,  the  darling  of  his  heart.  When  he  wrote  it  he  was  a 
member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  though  at  the 
time  of  his  death  he  was  a  member  of  one  of  the  Meth- 
odist Churches.  His  theology  is  more  nearly  allied  to 
Arianism  than  to  any  other  system  of  theology  with  which 
we  are  acquainted.  He  is  evidently  not  an  Arminian.  In 
his  writings,  while  he  claims  to  have  found  a  solid,  consist- 
ent, and  immovable  basis  for  the  doctrines  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  which  basis  alone,  he  thinks, 
can  save  our  Arminianism  from  crumbling  to  its  founda- 
tions, he  claims  that  he  is  not  an  Arminian,  and  he  denies 
that  he  is  a  Calvinist.  He  says  of  himself,  in  his  "  Theodicy  " 
(pages  26,  27) :  "  The  relation  which  the  writer  sustains  to 
other  systems  has  been,  it  appears  to  himself,  most  favora- 
ble to  a  successful  prosecution  of  the  following  speculations. 
Whether,  at  the  outset  of  his  inquiries,  he  was  the  more  of 
an  Arminian  or  of  a  Calvinist,  he  is  unable  to  say;  but 
if  his  crude  and  imperfectly  developed  sentiments  had 
been  made  known,  it  is  probable  he  would  have  been 
ranked  with  the  Arminians.  Be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  he  was  never  so  much  of  an  Armiuian,  or  of 


42  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

thing  else,  as  to  imagine  that  Calvinism  admitted  of  noth- 
ing great  and  good.  Ofi  the  contrary,  he  has  ever  believed 
that  the  Calvinists  were  at  least  equal  to  any  other  body 
of  men  in  piety,  which  is  certainly  the  highest  and  no- 
blest of  all  qualities.  And  besides,  it  was  a  constant 
delight  to  him  to  read  the  great  masterpieces  of  reason- 
ing which  Calvinism  had  furnished  for  the  instruction 
and  admiration  of  mankind.  By  this  means  he  came 
to  believe  that  the  scheme  of  the  Arminians'  could  not 
be  maintained,  and  his  faith  in  it  was  gradually  under- 
mined. 

"  But  although  he  thus  submitted  his  mind  to  the  domin- 
ion of  Calvinism  as  advocated  by  Edwards,  and  earnestly 
espoused  it  with  some  exceptions,  he  never  felt  that  pro- 
found, internal  satisfaction  of  the  truth  of  the  system  after 
which  his  rational  nature  continually  longed,  and  which 
it  struggled  to  realize.  He  certainly  expected  to  find  this 
satisfaction  in  Calvinism,  if  anywhere.  Long,  therefore, 
did  he  pause  over  every  portion  of  Calvinism,  in  order  to 
discover,  if  possible,  how  its  foundations  might  be  rendered 
more  clear  and  convincing,  and  all  its  parts  harmonized 
among  themselves,  as  well  as  with  the  great,  undeniable 
facts  of  man's  nature  and  destiny.  While  engaged  in 
these  inquiries,  he  has  been  more  than  once  led  to  see  what 
appeared  to  be  a  flaw  in  Calvinism  itself,  but  without  at 
first  perceiving  all  its  consequences.  By  reflection  on  these 
apparent  defects — nay,  by  protracted  and  earnest  medita- 
tion on  them — his  suspicions  have  been  confirmed  and  his 
opinions  changed." 

In  his  Quarterly  Review  for  1871  (page  776),  he  says: 
"  He  [President  Edwards]  has,  more  than  any  other  man 
that  has  ever  lived,  helped  to  deliver  us  from  the  shal- 
lows and  the  inconsistencies  of  the  popular"  Arminian 
flheology,  and,  at  the  same  time,  moved  us  to  raise  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  43 

standard  of  revolt  against  his  own  cast-iron  scheme  of  Cal- 
vinism." 

We  pass  on  now  to  show  that  Bledsoe  teaches  that 
Adam  was  not  created  holy.  To  this  end  we  shall  give  a 
number  of  quotations  from  his  writings,  beginning  with 
those  which  contain  his  idea  and  definition  of  holiness, 
and  following  them  closely  with  those  containing  what  he 
says  directly  about  Adam  not  being  created  holy.  He 
names  virtue  and  holiness  as  the  same.  We  quote  from 
his  "Theodicy"  as  follows:  "This  [true  virtue  in  the  heart] 
consists  not  in  holy  feelings,  as  they  are  called,  but  in 
holy  exercises  of  the  will."  (Page  124.)  "  Virtue  and  vice 
lie  not  in  the.  passive  state  of  the  sensibility,  nor  in  any 
other  necessitated  states  of  the  mind,  but  in  acts  of  the 
will,  and  in  habits  formed  by  a  repetition  of  such  free  vol- 
untary acts."  (Page  131.)  "This  [virtue]  consists  not  in 
the  possession  of  moral  powers,  but  in  the  proper  and  obe- 
dient exercise  of  those  powers."  (Page  194.)  We  quote 
next  from  his  Southern  Quarterly  Review.  From  the  Octo- 
ber number  for  1871,  we  give  the  following:  "The  thing 
for  which  we  seek  is  not  virtue  in  the  abstract,  but  virt- 
ue as  it  exists  in  the  breast  of  a  moral  agent.  We  seek 
virtue,  not  as  it  is  set  forth  in  the  external  rule  or  standard 
of  right,  but  only  as  it  is  a  quality  of  mind."  (Page  860.) 
"  Virtue  consists  not  in  our  natural  or  created  endow- 
ments, however  grand  or  beautiful,  nor  in  their  spon- 
taneous developments,  but  in  our  own  personal  acting  and 
doing."  (Page  862.)  "All  virtue  or  moral  goodness,  then, 
consists  in  acts  of  the  will,  and  in  the  habits  formed  by 
the  repetition  of  such  acts."  (Page  863.)  "Virtue,  or  holi- 
ness, is,  then,  a  practical  habit  of  the  will,  voluntary  in 
its  origin,  inasmuch  as  it  results  from  a  repetition  of  vol- 
untary acts."  (Page  864.)  "  To  say  that  virtue  or  holiness 
can  be  necessitated,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms."  (Page1 


44  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

868.)  "If  any  thing  is  necessarily  caused  in  us,  it  cannot 
be  our  virtue  or  our  vice;  we  can  neither  be  justly  rewarded 
nor  punished  for  it."  (April  No.,  p.  271.) 

"  We  say,  then,  that  there  never  can  be  virtue  or 
vice  in  the  breast  of  a  moral  agent,  prior  to  his  own 
actions  and  doings.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  insisted  by 
Edwards  that  true  virtue  or  holiness  was  planted  in  the 
bosom  of  the  first  man  by  the  act  of  creation.  '  In  a 
moral  agent,'  says  he,  'subject  to  moral  obligations,  it 
is  the  same  thing  to  be  perfectly  innocent  as  to  be  per- 
fectly righteous.  It  must  be  the  same,  because  there  can 
no  more  be  any  medium  between  sin  and  righteousness, 
or  between  being  right  and  being  wrong,  in  a  moral 
sense,  than  there  can  be  a  medium  between  straight  and 
crooked  in  a  natural.'  This  is  applied  to  the  first  man 
as  he  came  from  the  hand  of  the  Creator,  and  is  designed 
to  show  that  he  wras  created  with  true  holiness,  or  virtue,  in 
his  heart.  According  to  this  doctrine,  man  was  made  up- 
right, not  merely  in  the  sense  that  he  was  free  from  the 
least  bias  to  evil,  or  that  he  possessed  all  the  powers 
requisite  to  moral  agency,  but  in  the  sense  that  true  virtue 
or  moral  goodness  was  planted  in  his  nature  by  the  act  of 
creation.  If  this  be  so,  the  doctrine  of  a  necessary  holi- 
ness must  be  admitted;  for  surely  nothing  can  be  more 
necessary  to  us,  nothing  can  take  place  in  which  we  have 
less  to  do,  than  the  act  by  which  we  are  created. 

"  This,  then,  is  the  question  which  we  intend  to  examine: 
Whether  that  which  is  concreated  with  a  moral  agent  can 
be  his  virtue  or  his  vice.  Whether,  in  other  words,  the 
dispositions  or  qualities  which  Adam  derived  from  the  hand 
of  God  partook  of  the  nature  of  true  virtue  or  otherwise. 
Edwards  assumes  the  affirmative."  ("  Theodicy,"  pages  115, 
116.) 

"  It  is   agreeable  to   the  voice   of  human  reason   that 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  45 

nothing  can  be  our  virtue,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word, 
which  was  planted  in  us  by  the  act  of  creation,  and  in  re- 
gard to  the  production  of  which  we  possessed  no  knowledge, 
exercised  no  agency,  and  gave  no  consent."  (Page  1 22.)  "As 
Adam  deserved  no  praise  on  account  of  what  he  received 
at  his  creation,  so  such  endowments  partook  not  of  the  nat- 
ure of  true  virtue."  (Page  123.)  "  We  could  regard  the 
glory  of  the  heavens,  or  the  beauty  of  the  earth,  with  a 
sentiment  of  moral  approbation  as  easily  as  we  could  ascribe 
the  character  of  moral  goodness  to  the  noble  qualities  with 
which  the  Almighty  had  been  pleased  to  adorn  the  nature 
of  the  first  man."  (Page  124.)  "  If  God  should  cause 
virtue  to  exist  in  the  heart  of  a  moral  agent,  he  would 
work  a  contradiction."  (Page  192.) 

We  have  here  Dr.  Bledsoe's  idea  and  definition  of  holi- 
ness, and  the  condition  in  which  he  thinks  Adam  was  crer 
ated.  This,  his  idea  of  holiness,  he  tells  us,  like  a  new 
sun,  dawned  upon  his  mind  after  twenty  years'  severe  study, 
and  searching  among  books,  and  wandering  in  darkness. 
If  he  had  only  secured  the  work  of  John  Taylor,  of  Nor- 
wich, on  "  Original  Sin,"  he  might  have  found  and  read  in 
twenty  minutes  this  very  idea,  and  this  identical  definition 
of  holiness,  which  he  presents  to  us. 

At  first  thought,  it  seems  to  us  a  pity  that  he  was  not 
saved  such  long  wandering  in  darkness.  But,  then,  had  he 
found  this  idea  of  holiness  in  Taylor's  work  on  "Original 
Sin,"  a  work  written  so  long  before  Bledsoe  was  born,  Bled- 
soe  would  have  been  deprived  of  the  glory  of  the  discovery 
and  original  production  of  the  idea!  And,  again,  the  light 
was  so  brilliant  when  it  dawned  upon  him! 

He  declares  in  so  many  words  that  he  takes  the  negative 
of  the  question  whether  Adam  was  created  holy,  and  an- 
nounces that  he  intends  to  demolish  the  arguments  which 
Edwards  adduces  to  prove  that  holiness  was  planted  in  the  « 


46  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

bosom  of  Adam  by  the  act  of  creation.  Maintaining  that 
holiness  consists  in  good  acts  of  the  will,  and  in  the  habits 
formed  by  the  repetition  of  such  acts,  he  is  bound,  by  con- 
sistency -with  himself,  to  maintain  that  Adam  was  not  cre- 
ated holy.  And  Dr.  Bledsoe  goes  so  far  as  to  make  holi- 
ness and  obedience  strictly  synonymous.  Speaking  ot  what 
God  can  and  does  do,  he  says:  "He  gives  us  all  the  pow- 
ers, all  the  influences,  and  all  the  means  necessary  to  obe- 
dience, or  holiness;  but,  he  does  not  give  us  the  obedience 
or  holiness  itself:"  (Review,  1871,  p.  878.) 

Obedience  and  holiness  are  not  the  same.  They  are  no 
more  the  same  than  a  principle  and  an  act  are  the  same. 
They  are  as  far  from  being  the  same  as  nature  and  practice 
are  from  being  the  same.  God  may  not  be  able  to  force 
holiness  upon  a  moral  agent  against  his  will,  but  God  could, 
and  he  did,  create  holy  beings.  Creating  a  holy  being  is 
quite  another  thing  to  forcing  the  will  of  a  moral  agent, 
and  making  an  unholy  agent  holy  against  his  will.  Had 
not  Bledsoe  been  dazzled  by  his  new  idea  of  holiness,  he 
might  have  seen  this,  and  then  he  would  have  seen  the  un- 
tenableness  of  his  positions  and  the  futility  of  his  arguments. 

Before  going  into  a  thorough  discussion  of  the  merits  of 
these  points,  we  will  give  what  Dr.  John  Taylor  says  on  the 
question  whether  Adam  was  created  holy.  Dr.  Taylor  was 
an  avowed  Arian.  His  definition  of  holiness  and  his  view 
of  Adam's  primitive  nature  are  identical  with  those  of 
Bledsoe.  We  quote  now  from  his  work  on  "  Original  Sin : " 
"But  moral  virtue,  or  holiness,  in  its  very  nature,  implieth 
the  choice  and  consent  of  a  moral  agent,  without  which  it 
cannot  be  virtue  or  holiness.  God  indeed  can,  and  undoubt- 
edly doth,  assist  and  direct  us  in  this  choice  and  consent, 
in  ways  and  degrees  which  we  are  not  able  to  determine. 
But  still,  holiness  must  necessarily  be  the  choice  of  our  own 
minds;  for  how  much  soever  we  are  assisted  in  choosing,  it 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  47 

must  be  our  own  act  and  deed,  or  it  cannot  be  our  virtue 
and  holiness.  A  necessary  holiness  is  no  holiness;  a  virtue 
or  righteousness  supposed  to  be  forced  upon  our  minds,  and 
irresistibly  infused  into  us,  whether  we  will  or  not,  is  no 
virtue,  no  righteousness.  Therefore,  however  God  may 
provide  and  apply  means  to  engage  our  wills  to  the  observ- 
ance of  what  is  right  and  true,  it  is,  I  think,  demonstra- 
tion that  we  cannot  as  moral  agents  observe  what  is  right 
and  true,  or  be  righteous  and  holy,  without  our  o\sn  free 
and  explicit  choice.  And,  in  consequence,  Adam  could 
not  be  originally  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness, 
because  he  must  choose  to  be  righteous  before  he  could  be 
righteous ;  and  therefore  he  must  exist,  he  must  be  created — 
yea,  he  must  exercise  thought  and  reflection — before  he  was 
righteous.  For  righteousness  is  the  right  use  and  applica- 
tion of  our  powers;  consequently  our  powers  must  not  only 
exist,  but  also  be  used  and  applied  before  we  can  be  right- 
eous." (Pages  182,  183.) 

"In  the  very  nature  of  things,  we  cannot  be  holy  with- 
out our  own  choice  and  endeavor."  (Page  258.) 

"  For  to  say  that  God  not  only  endowed  Adam,  with  a 
capacity  of  being  righteous,  but,  moreover,  that  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness  were  created  with  him,  or  wrought 
into  his  nature  at  the  same  time  he  was  made,  is  to  affirm  a 
contradiction,  or  what  is  inconsistent  with  the  very  nature 
of  righteousness.  Such  a  righteousness  would  have  been 
pi'oduced  in  him  without  his  knowledge  and  consent,  and 
so  would  have  been  no  righteousness  at  all.  For  it  is  ob- 
vious to  the  common  sense  of  all  mankind  that  whatever 
is  wrought  in  my  nature  without  my  knowledge  and  con- 
sent cannot  possibly  be  either  sin  or  righteousness  in  me, 
because  it  is  not  what  I  choose,  it  is  no  act  or  deed  of  mine, 
but  introduced  into  my  nature  whether  I  will  or  not;  and 
consequently  I  can  neither  be  commended  nor  condemned, 


48       .  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

rewarded  nor  punished,  for  it.  It  is  a  mere  natural  instinct, 
of  the  same  kind  with  the  industry  of  the  bee  or  the  fierce- 
ness of  the  lion.  Kighteousness  is  right  action.  But  Adam 
could  not  act  either  in  willing  or  doing  right,  before  he  was 
created;  therefore  he  must  be  created,  he  must  exist,  and 
use  his  intellectual  powers,  before  he  could  be  righteous." 
("Supplement,"  pp.  161,  162.) 

"A  habit  is  gained  by  repeated  acts;  and  therefore  I  do 
not  see  how  it  can  properly  be  applied  to  original  righteous- 
ness. A  natural  inclination,  propensity,  or  instinct,  may, 
I  conceive,  be  a  principle  or  spring  of  action;  but  in  itself 
can  neither  be  righteous  nor  righteousness.  For  such  pro- 
pensity or  principle  either  is  or  is  not  under  the  government 
of  my  will  or  choice.  If  not,  then  it  can  no  more  be 
righteousness  than  the  palpitation  of  my  heart,  or  the  work- 
•  ing  of  my  lungs.  If  this  propensity  be  under  the  govern- 
ment and  control  of  my  will,  then  it  can  be  righteous  only 
so  far  as  applied  to  righteous  action  in  heart  or  life.  For 
who  will  say  that  any  propensity  or  principle  in  Adam 
would  have  been  holy,  or  holiness,  though  never  by  him 
applied  to  any  holy  purpose?  Therefore,  it  is  not  the  pro- 
pensity which  is  righteousness,  but  my  right  application  of 
it."  ("Supplement,"  p.  164.) 

"Whosoever  pleases  soberly  to  consider  these  things,  I 
am  persuaded,  will  see  no  ground  in  these  texts  to  conclude 
that  righteousness,  or  holiness,  was  concreated  with  Adorn, 
or  wrought  into  his  nature;  for  neither  in  them  nor  in  the 
context  is  there  one  word  about  Adam;  much  less  in  this, 
or  any  other  part  of  Scripture,  is  it  affirmed,  or  so  much  as 
intimated,  that  Adam  was  created  in  righteousness  or  holi- 
ness." ("Supplement,"  p.  155.) 

Here  is  taught  by  Taylor  that  holiness,  or  virtue,  con- 
sists in  acts  of  the  will,  or  habits  formed  by  a  repetition  of 
such  acts;  that  holiness  does  not  and  cannot  exist  in  a  hu- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  49 

man  being  prior  to  the  free,  voluntary  acts  of  the  will  and 
the  habits  formed  by  the  repetition  of  such  acts ;  that  noth- 
ing that  is  in  one  when  he  comes  into  the  world  can  be 
virtue  or  holiness;  and  that  Adam  was  not  created  holy. 

Dr.  Taylor,  insisting  that  holiness  consists  in  the  choice 
and  actions  of  the  will,  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  "the  high- 
est excellency  of  intelligent  beings,  and  even  of  God  him- 
self, is  virtue,  or  right  action."  (Page  76.) 

We  are  ready  to  concede  that  if  holiness  is  obedience 
to  law,  and  consists  alone  in  acts  of  the  will,  then  there 
must  be  choice  and  action ;  deeds  must  be  performed,  obe- 
dience to  law7  must  be  rendered,  before  there  can  be  holi- 
ness. We  are  ready  also  to  concede  that  upon  this  hypoth- 
esis holiness  cannot  be  concreated  in  the  breast  of  a  moral 
agent,  and  that  the  most  that  could  be  done  in  this  event 
would  be  the  creation  of  a  being  capable  of  acquiring  ho* 
liness.  We  are  even  ready  to  concede  that  if  this  idea  of 
holiness  be  correct  the  highest  excellency  of  God  himself  is 
right  action.  But  we  are  not  ready  to  accept  this  idea 
and  definition  of  holiness.  We  are  not,  therefore,  ready  to 
concede  that  holiness  cannot  be  concreated  in  a  moral 
agent,  and  we  are  not  ready  to  concede  that  the  highest 
excellency  of  God  himself  is  right  action. 

Holiness  is  a  quality ;  holiness  is  moral  goodness,  and, 
as  a  quality,  may  be  ascribed  to  character,  to  nature,  to  be- 
ing, as  well  as  to  conduct  and  to  action.  An  act  may  be 
holy  or  vicious,  and  holiness  does  not  necessarily  depend 
upon  the  existence  of  actions  for  its  existence.  It  may  be 
correct  in  a  practical  point  of  view,  when  describing  what 
human  conduct  should  be,  to  say  that  virtue  is  voluntary 
conformity  to  law.  An  act  may  be  holy,  and  it  may  be  a 
manifestation  of  holiness,  and  it  may  tend  to  holiness,  and 
it  may  be  the  fruit  of  holiness,  but  is  not  essentially  holi- 
ness itself.  An  act  is  simply  an  act,  and  may  be  vicious 
4 


50  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

or  virtuous,  and  not  holiness,  as  holiness  is  a  quality. 
There  is  such  a  thing  as  holiness  and  a  holy  being,  inde- 
pendent of  action,  and  in  the  absence  of  action.  God  is 
holy,  and  holiness,  independent  of  what  he  has  done.  In 
the  nature  of  the  case,  God  existed  before  he  acted.  It 
does  not  affect  the  truth  of  this  statement  to  say  that  his 
existence  and  action  were  coetaneous.  Holiness  was  in  him 
and  of  him,  and  he  was  holy  as  he  existed  in  himself  in  his 
character,  perfections,  and  being,  before  he  acted.  There 
was  a  virtuous  state  of  God's  faculties,  powers,  and  attri- 
butes, before  there  was  an  exercise  of  his  powers.  His 
powers  and  faculties  were  right  and  holy  before  he  exer- 
cised and  applied  them  in  choice  and  action.  Holiness  is 
inherent  in  the  Almighty,  and  not  something  acquired  by 
him.  His  highest  excellency  is  not  in  his  actions,  but  in 
himself;  not  in  what  he  does — which,  of  course,,  is  always 
right — but  in  what  he  is.  And  so  here  was  holiness  before 
there  was  choice,  before  there  was  action,  before  there  was 
a  habit  of  action. 

We  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  arguments  which  Dr. 
Edwards,  or  any  one  else,  makes  in  support  of  the  position 
that  Adam  was  created  holy.  It  makes  but  little  difference 
with  us  whether  Dr.  Bledsoe  has  succeeded  in  demolishing 
Edwards's  arguments  or  not;  we  are  not  engaged  for  their 
defense ;  some  of  them  are  good,  others  are  perhaps  falla- 
cious. But  the  position  that  Adam  was  created  holy  is 
scriptural,  and  the  arguments  of  Drs.  Taylor  and  Bledsoe 
on  the  subject,  we  are  sure,  are  as  futile  as  any  arguments 
ever  adduced  by  any  one  on  any  subject. 

As  holiness  can  exist  before  action,  and  as  holiness  is 
an  attribute  of  God,  and  is  not  inconsistent  with  himself, 
he  could  make  a  creature  endowed  with  this  quality. 
Adam,  as  created,  was  free  from  all  corruption  and  from 
all  defect.  He  was  "  perfect  and  right,  pure  and  good." 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation,  51 

His  powers  were  all  right;  each  faculty  and  power  Avas 
right  in  itself,  and  every  one  properly  adjusted  in  its  rela- 
tions to  every  other.  His  judgment,  conscience,  and  will 
were  all  evenly  balanced,  one  not  stronger  nor  weaker  than 
the  other. 

In  Ephesians  iv.  24  and  Colossians  iii.  10,  the  apostle 
writes:  "And  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God 
is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  "And  have 
put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after 
the  image  of  him  that  created  him."  Here  is  a  direct  ref- 
erence to  the  creation  of  Adam  in  the  image  of  God ;  and 
the  apostle,  giving  an  exposition  of  the  text  in  Genesis, 
which  mentions  the  creation  of  Adam  in  the  image  of  God, 
tells  us  in  what  the  image  of  God  consisted — righteousness, 
holiness,  and  knowledge.  Dr.  Taylor  himself  admits  that 
"  the  apostle  may  allude  here  to  Adam's  being  made  in  the 
image  of  God,  and  taketh  his  manner  of  expression  from 
thence."  The  only  way  in  which  he  can  meet  this  is  to  say 
that  "  this  image,  or  the  habits  of  virtue  and  holiness,  can- 
not be  created  in  the  same  manner  as  our  natural  faculties," 
and  that  "  God  created  the  new  man  when  he  erected  the 
gospel  dispensation."  Having  nothing  better  to  offer,  he 
would  have  served  his  cause  by  offering  nothing  in  the 
premises.  The  declaration  that  the  new  man  mentioned  is 
the  gospel  dispensation  is  absurd,  and  the  opinion  that  ho- 
liness cannot  be  created  in  the  same  manner  as  our  natural 
faculties  has  nothing  to  support  it. 

Adam,  in  his  primitive  nature,  was  not  under  the  neces- 
sity of  acquiring  a  character  in  order  to  his  approval,  but 
he  was  created  with  such  nature  and  in  such  condition  as 
entitled  him  to,  and  secured  for  him,  the  approbation  and 
commendation  of  God,  and  he  only  had  to  retain  such 
nature  and  condition  by  obedience  to  law. 

Man,  "  distinguished  link  in  being's  endless  chain,"  was 


52  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

made  to  be  immortal,  to  live  forever.  God  did  not  create 
him  to  be  "  bound  to  the  hasty  pinions  of  an  hour,"  but 
gave  him  life  with  no  purpose  of  taking  it  from  him,  un- 
less he  forfeited  it,  and  with  no  limits  beyond  which  it 
could  not  extend,  and  beyond  which  it  could  not  endure. 
Adam  was  not  naturally  mortal  in  the  sense  that  he  was 
under  a  dispensation  of  death.  The  Bible  teaches  that 
death  is  the  wages  of  sin,  and  not  the  result  of  natural 
mortality  or  physical  weakness.  Had  there  been  no  sin, 
there  would  have  been  no  death.  The  announcement,  "In 
the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die," 
made  to  Adam  in  the  garden,  when  he  was  commanded  not 
to  eat  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  has  its 
significance  alone  in  the  truth  that  had  he  not  violated  the 
law  of  God  he  never  would  have  died,  but  would  have 
lived  forever.  How  true  in  Adam's  case,  "  when  lust  hath 
conceived,  it  bringeth  forth  sin ;  and  sin,  when  it  is  finished 
bringeth  forth  death ! "  Moreover,  "  by  one  man  sin  en- 
tered into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin." 

We  will  conclude  the  subject  and  the  chapter  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Pollok : 

But  man  he  made  of  angel  form  erect, 

To  hold  communion  with  the  heavens  above, 

And  on  his  soul  impressed  His  image  fair, 

His  own  similitude  of  holiness, 

Of  virtue,  truth,  and  love;  with  reason  high 

To  balance  right  and  wrong,  and  conscience  quick 

To  choose  or  to  reject;  with  knowledge  great, 

Prudence  and  wisdom,  vigilance  and  strength, 

To  guard  all  force  or  guile;  and,  last  of  all, 

The  highest  gift  of  God's  abundant  grace, 

With  perfect,  free,  unbiased  will.     Thus  man 

Was  made  upright,  immortal  made,  and  crowned 

The  king  of  all. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  53 


CHAPTER  IV. 

MAN'S  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION. 

"TTTHEN  the  work  of  creation  was  completed,  man 
V  V  found  himself  an  inhabitant  of  a  region  of  surpass- 
ing beauty,  a  place  of  pleasantness  and  delight,  a  place 
where  murmuring  brooks  and  birds  of  sweetest  note  made 
music,  and  trees  of  richest  foliage  and  most  delicious  fruits 
profusely  grew — a  place  overarched  with  most  brilliant 
skies,  perfumed  \vith  odoriferous  balm,  and  enriched  with 
most  choice  gems  and  precious  metals.  Man  was  put  in 
Eden — "  choicest  spot  on  earth."  "And  the  Lord  God 
planted  a  garden  eastward  in  Eden ;  and  there  he  put  the 
man  whom  he  had  formed.  And  out  of  the  ground  made 
the  Lord  God  to  grow  every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to  the 
sight,  and  good  for  food ;  the  tree  of  life  also  in  the  midst 
of  the  garden,  and  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil. 
And  a  river  went  out  of  Eden  to  water  the  garden ;  and 
from  thence  it  was  parted,  and  became  into  four  heads. 
The  name  of  the  first  is  Pison ;  that  is  it  which  compasseth 
the  whole  land  of  Havilah,  where  there  is  gold ;  and  the 
gold  of  that  land  is  good ;  there  is  bdellium  and  the  onyx- 
stone.  And  the  name  of  the  second  river  is  Gihon ;  the 
same  is  it  that  compasseth  the  whole  land  of  Ethiopia. 
And  the  name  of  the  third  river  is  Hiddekel;  that  is  it 
which  goeth  toward  the  east  of  Assyria.  And  the  fourth 
river  is  Euphrates." 

The  Scriptures  describe  the  location  of  the  garden  with 
sufficient  minuteness  for  us  to  learn  what  quarter  of  the 
globe  it  was  in.  It  was  somewhere  in  proximity  to  the 


54  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

great  rivers  of  the  East.  Whether  it  was  on  the  Euphrates, 
the  Ganges,  the  Nile,  or  some  other,  whether  at  the  source 
or  confluence  of  these  rivers  as  they  now  have  their  rise 
and  course,  we  cannot  tell.  The  river  Euphrates  and  the 
country  of  Ethiopia  and  of  Assyria  are  all  mentioned  in 
the  Scripture  account  of  the  garden  given  by  Moses.  The 
land  of  Eden  in  which  the  garden  was  planted  was  in  prox- 
imity to  these  lands.  But  the  geographical  limits  of  these 
countries,  and  of  the  country  of  Eden,  were  indefinite,  and 
hence  one  difficulty  of  accurately  locating  the  site  of  the 
garden  where  Adam  was  first  domiciled.  In  what  special 
locality,  or  in  what  particular  country  as  now  designated, 
the  garden  of  Eden  was  situated,  we  are  unable  at  this  dis- 
tance of  time  to  know.  No  trace  of  the  garden,  so  far  as 
we  can  learn,  now  remains.  If  not  before,  all  traces  of  its 
s'.te  were  obliterated  by  the  flood  in  Noah's  time. 

Here  in  this  garden,  where  grew  "every  tree  that  is  pleas- 
ant to  the  sight,  and  good  for  food,"  Adam  was  prohibited 
eating  of  one  tree,  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil. 
"Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat;  but 
of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt 
not  eat  of  it."  (Gen.  ii.  16,  17.) 

We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  what  was  the  specific 
difference  in  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil 
and  the  other  trees  of  the  garden.  We  know,  however, 
that  this  tree  stood  related  in  some  way,  symbolically  or 
otherwise,  to  law.  It  stood  related  in  some  way  to  moral 
law.  Good  and  evil,  life  and  death,  are  all  connected  with 
it  in  its  presentation  to  Adam,  and  in  the  prohibition  im- 
posed upon  him  concerning  it.  These,  "good  and  evil," 
"  life  and  death,"  convey  to  us  the  idea  of  moral  law.  They 
convey  to  us  the  obligations  and  duties  required  by  moral 
law,  and  the  awards  incident  to  obedience  and  disobedience. 
He  who  supposes  this  tree  a  common  apple-tree,  with  no 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation. 


significance  attaching  to  it  other  than  such  as  pertains  to  a 
common  fruit-tree,  has  yet  to  learn  its  true  nature  and  real 
significance. 

The  precept  here  given  to  Adam  in  the  injunction  of  ab- 
stinence from  this  tree  was  no  arbitrary  precept  arbitrarily 
imposed,  but  it  was  one  founded  in  eternal  principles  and 
imposed  by  the  wisest,  best,  and  highest  administration. 
The  law  given  to  Adam,  of  which  this  precept  concerning 
the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  was  an  embodi- 
ment or  epitome  or  symbol  or  test,  was  the  law  of  right 
and  wrong,  the  law  of  God,  which  required  homage  to  the 
Creator  and  Lord,  Judge  and  Ruler,  of  moral  beings.  It 
i§  not  to  be  supposed,  therefore,  that  the  bare  act  of  eating 
or  not  eating  of  this  tree  was  all  that  was  required  and  em- 
braced in  the  law  under  which  Adam  was  created  and,  at 
the  first,  lived.  This  precept  was  not  only  not  arbitrary,  it 
was  simple,  and  of  easy  performance.  Such  a  plain  and 
easy  duty,  connected  with  such  circumstances  and  objects 
as  presented  to  his  mind  and  kept  constantly  before  him  his 
Lord  and  Maker,  and  the  exalted  character  of  his  own  nat- 
ure, and  the  benedictions  involved  in  the  issues,  wras  calcu- 
lated, one  would  think,  to  prompt  Adam  to  the  greatest  fi- 
delity in  his  actions  and  in  his  desires. 

Adam  w7as  absolutely  able  to  keep  this  commandment, 
and  altogether  competent  to  violate  it.  He  possessed  a  will, 
and  was  consequently  endowed  with  freedom.  Will  is  a 
faculty  of  the  human  soul.  Will  is  not  choice,  but  is  the 
faculty  or  inherent  endowment  of  the  soul  by  which  choice 
is  made.  Choice  is  the  decision  of  the  will  in  favor  of  one 
thing  rather  than  in  favor  of  something  else.  Freedom, 
which  is  immunity  from  compulsion,  is  a  native  endowment 
of  the  soul.  Will  and  freedom,  though  not  the.  same, 
are  inseparable  endowments;  and  every  choice,  :is  it  is  a  de- 
cision of  the  will,  is  reached  independently  of  all  external 


56  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

and  necessitating  causes  and  agencies.  The  question  con- 
cerning the  power  of  the  will  to  choose  is  not  whether  "  the 
will  chooses  the  contrary  of  what  it  does  choose,  which  is 
self-contradiction,"  but  whether  it  can  choose  the  contrary 
of  what  it  does  choose.  Adam  was  a  moral  agent  under 
moral  law,  with  a  will  unimpaired.  He  was  put  upon  pro- 
bation and  under  trial.  The  terms,  conditions,  injunctions, 
and  threatened  penalties  contained  in  the  law  imposed  on 
him  all  indicate  probation  and  trial.  His  condition  in- 
volved contingency.  Contingency  has  nothing  to  do  in  de- 
termining the  will  to  one  thing  rather  than  to  another,  any 
more  than  has  necessity;  but  there  is  always  contingency, 
and  not  necessity,  where  there  is  choice.  Adam's  condition 
as  a  moral  agent  under  probation  involved  more  than  con- 
tingency ;  it  involved  the  contingency  of  sinning.  He  was 
perfectly  competent  to  choose  right  or  wrong,  good  or  evil. 
Some  have  maintained  that  it  was  foreordained  and  decreed 
by  the  Author  of  his  being  that  Adam  should  do  what  he 
did — sin  and  die — and  that  he  was  so  under  imperative  ne- 
cessity and  irresistible  forces  that  he  could  not  choose  or  do 
otherwise  than  as  he  did.  Than  which  nothing  is  more  re- 
pugnant to  the  nature  of  man  and  the  moral  government 
of  God.  Adam  was  under  no  necessity,  decree,  or  fore- 
ordination  which  made  it  inevitable  that  he  must  sin  and 
die.  He  was  subjected  to  and  controlled  by  no  forces  which 
were  irresistible.  But  it  was  as  much  within  the  limits  of 
his  condition  and  capacity  to  choose  the  path  of  obedience, 
do  right  and  live,  as  it  was  to  choose  the  path  of  disobedi- 
ence, do  wrong  and  die. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  this  prohibition  is  of  the  nat- 
ure of  a  positive  precept,  as  distinguished  from  &  moral 
precept.  In  former  times  the  distinctive  nature  and  com- 
parative value  of  moral  and  positive  precepts  and  duties 
engaged  much  attention.  The  controversy  on  this  subject 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  57 

seems  to  have  connected  itself  with  the  controversy  about 
the  necessity  and  sufficiency  of  natural  and  revealed  relig- 
ion, as  compared  the  one  with  the  other.  Dr.  Waterland, 
in  a  treatise  on  "The  Nature,  Obligation,  and  Efficacy  of 
the  Christian  Sacraments,"  a  work  published  in  London  in 
1730,  treats  of  the  distinction  between  moral  and  positive 
duties,  and  of  the  comparative  value,  excellency,  and  obli- 
gation of  moral  and  positive  precepts.  In  this  treatise  he 
says:  "But  moral  law,  in  a  more  restrained  sense,  signifies 
the  same  with  natural  law,  a  law  derived  from  God,  conso- 
nant to  the  nature  and  reason  of  things,  and  therefore  of  as 
fixed  and  immovable  obligation  as  the  nature  and  reason 
of  things  is.  Positive  divine  law,  in  contradistinction  to  the 
other,  is  not  founded  in  the  fixed  nature  or  reason  of  things, 
or  at  least  not  known  to  be  so,  being  considered  only  as 
prescribed,  and  as  depending  on  God's  good  pleasure  either 
to  remove  or  continue  it."  (Pages  7,  8.) 

Thomas  Chubb,  a  deist,  and  an  extensive  writer,  in  a 
work  styled,  "A  Discourse  Concerning  Reason  with  regard 
to  Religion  and  Divine  Revelation,"  to  which  are  added 
some  reflections  upon  the  comparative  excellency  and  use- 
fulness of  moral  and  positive  duties,  and  bearing  date  Lon- 
don, 1731,  says:  "By  'moral  duties,'  I  understand  the  per- 
formance of  such  actions  as  are  in  themselves  right,  and  fit 
to  be  performed  by  every  intelligent  being,  or  moral  agent, 
in  equal  circumstances;  which  fitness  results  solely  from 
the  nature  and  reason  of  things,  when  considered  abstract- 
edly from  and  antecedent  to  any  promulgated  law,  whether 
human  or  divine.  .  .  .  By  'positive  duties,'  I  under- 
stand the  performance  of  such  actions  as,  in  reason,  we  are 
not  obliged  to  perform,  when  considered  abstractedly  from 
and  antecedent  to  any  promulgated  law  that  requires  our 
performance  of  them."  (Pages  33,  34,  58.) 

According  to  the  ideas  of  these  authors,  moral  precepts 


58  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

are  founded  in  the  eternal  and  immutable  reasons  of  things, 
and  are  natural,  indispensable,  universal,  permanent,  and 
eternal;  while  positive  precepts  are  founded  alone  in  the 
pleasure  of  God,  or  in  prudential  reasons,  and  are  tempo- 
rary— limited  to  times,  places,  and  persons. 

In  the  controversy  about  moral  precepts  and  duties,  there 
has  been  a  division  as  to  which  is  more  excellent,  and  to 
which  the  preference  must  be  given,  and,  in  case  one  inter- 
feres with  the  other,  Avhich  ought  to  be  obeyed.  One  au- 
thor (Waterland)  says:  "There  may  be  as  great  virtue  (or 
greater)  in  obeying  positive  precepts  as  in  obeying  moral 
ones.  There  may  be  as  great  (or  greater)  iniquity  and  im- 
piety in  disobeying  positive  precepts  as  in  disobeying  moral 
ones."  (Page  15.)  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  and  others  say 
"that  positive  observances  are  not  to  be  compared  with 
moral  virtues."  "  That  moral  duties  are  always  to  be  pre- 
ferred before  positive,  wrhen  they  stand  in  competition." 
Mr.  Chubb  says:  "I  have  shown  that  when  moral  and  pos- 
itive duties  come  in  competition  with  respect  to  their  excel- 
lency, etc.,  then  moral  duties  are  greatly  preferable  to  posi- 
tive duties."  (Page  76.) 

It  is  not  improper  to  define  precepts  and  duties,  and  that 
there  are  essential  differences  in  many  of  them  cannot  be 
questioned;  but  we  doubt  whether  the  terms  "moral"  and 
"positive"  are  the  proper  terms  by  which  to  make  the  dis- 
tinctions and  describe  the  characteristic  differences  pertain- 
ing to  precepts.  We  think  all  divine  laws  and  precepts 
imposed  upon  moral  agents  are  moral  laws  and  precepts, 
and  that  all  duties  required  of  moral  agents  by  God  are 
moral  duties.  Some  of  the  laws  and  precepts  which  God 
imposes  upon  moral  agents  seem  to  be  special  and  tempo- 
rary, but  fhcy  are  as  much  moral  as  the  more  general  and 
permanent  and  ever-enduring;  and  one  law  which  God 
imposes  upon  moral  agents  is  founded  as  much  in  the  rea- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  59 

son  and  fitness  of  things  as  any  other  of  his  laws.  As  to 
which  is  the  more  excellent,  and  which,  in  case  there  be  a 
conflict  betwixt  them,  should  be  obeyed  in  preference,  we 
have  this  to  say:  There  is  no  ground,  abstractly,  of  supe- 
rior excellence  in  the  one  or  the  other.  Abstractly  consid- 
ered, the  excellence  of  one  precept  is  equal  to  the  excel- 
lence of  any  and  every  other  precept.  The  precepts  of 
God  never,  under  any  circumstances,  nor  in  any  event, 
stand  in  competition  with  each  other.  There  is  never  any 
conflict  in  the  duties  imposed  by  the  law  of  God.  God 
never  can  impose  any  law  which  is  in  conflict  with  himself, 
and  so,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  there  can  be  no  competi- 
tion in  any  of  his  precepts.  A  duty  may  be  enjoined  which 
can  be  discharged  only  at  stated  times  and  on  special  occa- 
sions and  in  specific  relations,  but  every  other  duty  enjoined 
is  in  abeyance  when  that  is  exacted,  and  that  without  ig- 
noring or  violating  any  divine  precept. 

We  have  no  disposition  to  ignore  the  lines  of  distinction  in 
the  laws  of  God  as  drawn  out  and  set  forth  under  the  terms 
"moral,"  "ceremonial,"  etc.;  but,  as  stated,  we  doubt  wheth- 
er the  terms  "moral"  and  "  positive"  are  the  proper  terms  to 
use  in  the  connection  in  which  they  stand  in  the  discussion 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  divine  precepts ;  and  we  would 
never  convey  the  idea  that  positive,  ceremonial,  and  ecclesi- 
astical laws  and  precepts  are  not  also  moral  so  far  as  they  aro 
from  God,  and  are  of  binding  obligation  upon  moral  agents. 

The  prohibition  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil  involved  all  that  is  involved  in  moral  relations 
and  moral  obligations,  and  was  founded  in  these  relations 
and  obligations  as  unmistakably  as  is  the  command,  "Thou 
shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me." 

The  account  of  the  temptation  in  the  garden  is  one  of 
the  most  important  recorded  in  the  history  of  man: 

"  Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtile  than  any  beast  of  the 


60  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

field  which  the  Lord  God  had  made;  and  he  said  unto  the 
woman,  Yea,  hath  God  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  every  tree 
of  the  garden?  And  the  woman  said  unto  the  serpent,  We 
may  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  trees  of  the  garden,  but  of  the 
fruit  of  the  tree  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  garden,  God  hath 
said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  it,  neither  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die, 
And  the  serpent  said  unto  the  woman,  Ye  shall  not  surely 
die :  for  God  doth  know,  that  in  the  day  ye  eat  thereof,  then 
your  eyes  shall  be  opened ;  and  ye  shall  be  as  gods,  knowing 
good  and  evil.  And  when  the  woman  saw  that  the  tree  was 
good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant  to  the  eyes,  and  a 
tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one  wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit 
thereof,  and  did  eat;  and  gave  also  unto  her  husband  with 
her,  and  he  did  eat.  And  the  eyes  of  them  both  were 
opened,  and  they  knew  that  they  were  naked;  and  they 
sewed  fig-leaves  together,  and  made  themselves  aprons.  And 
they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God  walking  in  the  gar- 
den in  the  cool  of  the  day;  and  Adam  and  his  wife  hid 
themselves  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  God  amongst  the 
trees  of  the  garden."  (Gen.  iii.  1-8.) 

This  is  no  allegory,  but  an  historical  account  of  a  literal 
transaction.  This  record  in  Genesis  is  in  the  form  and  style 
of  history,  and  the  New  Testament  writings  make  such  al- 
lusions to  the  subject  as  can  be  made  only  to  real  events  of 
historical  notoriety  and  authority.  "But  I  fear,  lest  by 
any  means,  as  the  serpent  beguiled  Eve  through  his  sub- 
tilty,  so  your  minds  should  be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity 
that  is  in  Christ."  ( 2  Cor.  xi.  3.)  "And  Adam  was  not 
deceived,  but  the  woman  being  deceived  was  in  the  trans- 
gression." (1  Tim.  ii.  14.)  The  terms,  "  the  similitude  of 
Adam's  transgression,"  and  "by  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,"  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  are  evident- 
ly allusions  to  the  transgression  in  the  garden,  and  demon- 
strate that  it  was  a  real  occurrence  recorded  as  history. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  61 

The  questions  pertaining  to  the  power  of  speech  in  the 
serpent,  with  many  other  curious  questions  upon  the  subject, 
we  shall  not  discuss,  as  they  are  of  no  vital  interest.  It 
appears  that  the  serpent  was  not  only  endowed  with  a  de- 
gree of  discernment  and  subtile  ingenuity  of  mind  and 
thought,  but  also  with  speech;  though  Milton  makes  Eve 
say  to  the  serpent, 

Thee,  serpent,  subtlest  beast  of  all  the  field 
I  knew,  but  not  with  human  voice  indued. 

The  serpent  occupied  the  position  of  an  agent  in  the 
temptation.  He  was  a  beast  of  the  field,  but  the  instru- 
ment of  Satan  in  the  work  of  temptation.  This  is  an  im- 
portant point  in  the  premises.  The  proof  that  Satan  was 
the  chief  and  leading  actor  in  this  temptation,  using  the  ser- 
pent as  his  chosen  instrument,  is  conclusive  and  easily 
adduced.  "Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts 
of  your  father  ye  will  do:  he  was  a  murderer  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  abode  not  in  the  truth,  because  there  is  no 
truth  in  him.  When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his 
own:  for  he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  of  it."  (John  viii.  44.) 
"That  old  serpent,  called  the  Devil,  and  Satan,  which  de- 
ceiveth  the  whole  world."  (  Kev.  xii.  9.)  "  For  the  devil 
sinneth  from  the  beginning.  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of 
God  was  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of 
the  devil."  (1  John  iii.  8.) 

The  works  of  the  devil  which  Christ  came  to  destroy 
were  begun  in  the  seduction  of  Adam,  as  well  as  in  the 
apostasy  of  Satan  himself.  The  above  passages  are  inex- 
plicable upon  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  Satan  was  the 
author  of  the  temptation,  and  the  serpent  his  instrument. 

The  serpent  did  not  approach  Adam  directly,  but 

Led  Eve,  our  credulous  mother,  to  the  tree 
Of  prohibition, 


62  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


and  beguiled  her  into  eating  thereof.  She  was  engaged  in 
advance  of  Adam  in  the  transgression,  and  induced  him  to 
transgress. 

She  gave  him  of  that  fair,  enticing  fruit 
With  liberal  hand :  he  scrupled  not  to  eat, 
Against  his  better  knowledge;  not  deceived, 
But  fondly  overcome  with  female  charm. 

If  it  be  asked  through  what  channels  the  first  pair,  inno- 
cent and  holy  as  they  were,  could  be  approached  and  se- 
duced from  the  path  of  obedience,  and  how  they  could  sin, 
we  answer,  The  temptation  was  presented  to  Eve  through 
the  faculties  and  senses  of  mind  and  body  with  which  she 
was  naturally  endowed.  She  had  sight,  taste,  and  desire — 
all  capable  of  gratification,  and  demanding  the  same.  For. 
the  gratification  of  these,  she  could  act;  and  through  these 
she  could  be  acted  upon,  moved,  and  controlled.  Sin,  there- 
fore, came  in  through  the  natural  channels  of  her  being,  as 
they  were  operated  upon  and  appealed  to  by  external 
agencies  and  objects.  The  serpent,  in  presenting  to  her 
the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  appealed  to 
these  natural  faculties  and  senses  of  mind  and  body.  By 
his  false  and  yet  subtile  representations  he  succeeded  in 
making  it  appear  to  her  that  the  fruit  of  this  tree  was  a 
good  and  proper  food  with  which  to  gratify  the  taste,  and 
beautiful  and  pleasant  for  the  gratification  of  the  sight,  and 
exactly  adapted  to  the  gratification  of  the  desire  for  the 
attainment  of  knowledge.  He  made  this  representation  for 
the  purpose  of  deceiving  her  and  inducing  her  to  sin.  He 
succeeded  in  the  first,  and  in  the  last.  He  deceived  her, 
and  she  sinned.  Through  the  same  avenues,  Adam  was 
approached  and  tempted,  only  from  a  different  stand-point, 
and  without  being  deceived.  Being  in  his  trial  and  proba- 
tion free,  and  following  the  leadings  of  his  appetites  and 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  63 

desires  at  his  own  will,  as  Eve  had  done,  without  any  irre- 
sistible forces  on  the  one  hand  or  constraining  necessity  on 
the  other,  he  ate  that  which  God  had  said  he  must  not  eat, 
and  this  was  sinning,  and  here  was  sin.  And  the  ever- 
recurring  questions  of  profoundest  interest,  Whence  came 
sin  ?  Through  what  approaches  did  sin  enter  into  the  do- 
minions of  God?  are  answered.  Sin  originated  with  the 
moral  agents  which  God  created  and  put  upon  trial.  So 
far  as  our  race  is  concerned,  sin  originated  with  Adam  and 
Eve,  and  consisted,  in  its  origin,  in  eating  the  fruit  of  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  when  they  were 
tempted  by  the  serpent. 

As  the  eating  of  the  fruit  of  this  tree  was  an  impinge- 
ment against  the  divine  law,  the  act  could  not  accord  with 
any  decree  or  purpose  of  the  divine  government.  The 
Lord  could  no  more  foreordain  and  decree  sin  as  an  origi- 
nal and  abstract  purpose  of  his  government  than  he  could 
lie  cr  constitute  himself  unholy.  Every  thing,  sinning  in- 
cluded, which  takes  place  in  the  universe  is  permitted  by 
God,  inasmuch  as  he  does  not  prevent  it,  and  it  actually 
comes  to  pass ;  but  sin  is  never  permitted  by  God  in  the  sense 
of  having  his  approval,  either  in  advance  of  the  act  or  after 
its  occurrence.  These  are  self-evident  truths,  needing  no  ar- 
ray of  evidence  or  parade  of  argumentation  for  their  dem- 
onstration. 

The  existence  of  demons,  or  evil  spirits,  is  first  taught  in 
this  historical  record  of  the  temptation  in  the  garden. 
Here  we  learn  that  there  are  malignant  spirits,  who  hate 
God  and  every  man,  and  who  oppose  the  one  and  injure 
the  other,  so  far  as  they  have  power  so  to  do.  A  tradi- 
tional account  of  the  devil  and  his  approach  to  Adam  and 
Eve  in  the  garden  in  the  form  of  a  serpent  has  been  pos- 
sessed by  almost  all  heathen  nations,  both  ancient  and 
modern.  The  temptation  in  the  garden  by  the  evil  one  in 


64  TJie  Old  and  the  Neio  Man : 

the  form  of  a  serpent  has,  no  doubt,  constituted  the  basis 
of  the  legends,  fables,  and  fictions  of  the  heathen  nations  of 
antiquity,  as  well  as  many  of  their  doctrines  concerning 
evil,  obscure,  perverted,  and  superstitious  as  they  are.  It  is 
very  likely,  after  all,  that  the  doctrine  of  Manes  concerning 
a  good  and  evil  spirit,  absurd  and  false  as  it  is,  had  its  rise 
in  this  history  of  the  temptation  of  Adam.  Satan,  accord- 
ing to  Scripture,  is  the  chief  and  leader  of  an  innumerable 
company  of  evil  spirits  who,  made  good  by  God,  retained 
not  their  holy  estate,  but  voluntarily  sinned  and  apostatized. 
Men  and  devils  have  become  sinful  through  their  own  choice 
and  actions.  God  created  them  moral  agents,  and  put  them 
on  trial  for  nobler  purposes  and  better  ends ;  but  they  com- 
mitted sin,  and  stand  in  the  universe  of  God  as  the  authors 
of  evil. 

We  must  henceforth  consider  man  fallen,  sinful. 


Or,  Sm  and  Salvation.  65 


CHAPTER  V, 

THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF 
THE  FIRST  MAN. 

rT^HE  command  to  refrain  from  touching  and  eating  of 
-L  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  was  given 
with  the  premonition,  "  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die."  This  was  not  an  empty  threat,  how- 
ever threatening;  nor  was  it  simply  prophetic,  however  fore- 
seeing. It  was  an  enactment  of  penalty  against  sin,  and  an 
admonition  against  incurring  guilt  and  falling  under  punish- 
ment. There  was  nothing  indefinite,  however  comprehensive, 
or  uncertain,  however  contingent,  about  the  consequences 
if  Inch  would  follow  the  eating  of  the  fruit  of  that  tree.  It 
is  not  more  certain  that  truth  is  unchangeable  than  that 
death  is  attendant  upon  sin.  Adam  disregarded  the  pre- 
monition, committed  the  offense,  and  fell  under  the  pen- 
alty. This  involves  much  every  way.  Death  was  the  fruit 
of  Adam's  first  disobedience.  But  what  is  it  to  die?  What 
were  tlie  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  upon  himself?  These 
are  questions  for  consideration  in  this  connection.  This 
death  spoken  of  was  something  incurred  by  sin,  and  that 
would  not  have  existed,  and  did  not  exist,  while  there  was 
no  disobedience.  To  argue  a  self-evident  proposition,  as 
this  is,  appears  to  us  an  absurdity.  To  admonish  one  to 
avoid,  by  abstaining  from  contingent  acts,  consequences 
which  are  inevitable,  whether  the  acts  are  done  or  not,  would 
be  inconsistent  with  integrity,  and  utterly  futile.  As  the 
All-wise  God  is  sincere,  and  as  an  intelligent  creature  can- 
not be  deterred,  by  the  announcement  of  a  visitation  which 


G6  The  Old  and  ih<>  New  Mm  : 


will  as  certainly  come  in  the  absence  of  the  act  as  with  it, 
from  doing  an  act,  it  is  evident  that  the  death  here  an- 
nounced must  be  something  to  which  Adam  was  not  ex- 
posed while  the  prohibited  tree  was  untouched — while  there 
was  no  sin. 

In  the  various  meanings  of  the  term  "to  die"  we  define 
it,  to  lose  life;  to  expire;  to  decay;  to  pass  away  from  this 
present  world;  to  cease  to  be;  to  lose  all  the  powers  and 
balances  of  life ;  to  fall  under  wrath  and  condemnation ;  to 
be  punished  with  everlasting  punishment.  Adam  fell  un- 
der the  power  and  liability  of  death  in  all  the'se  ideas  of 
death.  His  body  and  soul  were  under  the  power  and  do- 
minion of  death,  and  liable  to  eternal  death.  He  did  not 
escape  everlasting  punishment  because  it  was  not  included 
in  his  sentence  of  death  for  sin,  but  because. he  was  rescued 
from  the  sentence  which,  but  for  provisional  methods  and 
results,  would  have  consigned  him  to  everlasting  punish- 
ment— to  eternal  death.  Adam  suffered,  in  consequence  o£ 
his  sin,  the  weakening  of  his  powers,  the  corruption  of  his 
nature,  and  the  perversion  of  his  relations.  He  lost  his  re- 
lations to  the  very  fountain  of  life,  and  his  capacities  for 
life.  He  suffered  damage  in  all  his  faculties,  particularly 
his  reason  and  his  will. 

Reason  is  the  faculty  of  the  soul  which  tests  and  com- 
prehends the  natures  and  relations  of  beings  and  things, 
together  with  the  uses  of  things  and  the  results  of  actions. 
Thomas  Chubb  defines  reason:  "That  faculty  or  power  of 
the  mind  by  which  men  discern  and  judge  of  right  and 
wrong,  of  good  and  evil,  of  truth  and  error,  and  the  like." 
This  faculty  in  Adam  was  perfect  and  correct  before  his 
fall,  but  otherwise  after  his  sin.  Before  his  alliance  with. 
Satan,  and  his  apostasy,  he  apprehended  correctly  the  nat- 
ure of  the  things  about  him,  and  the  nature  of  the  God 
wi  h  whom  he  had  to  do.  After  his  apostasy,  it  was  far 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  67 

otherwise.  He  was  so  perverted  and  darkened  in  his  rea- 
son after  he  had  sinned  that  he  essayed  to  hide  himself  from 
the  all-seeing  eye  of  God  amongst  the  trees  of  the 'garden, 
and  attempted  also  to  shield  himself  from  the  charge  of  his 
offense  by  transferring  it  to  Eve. 

It  should  not  be  maintained  that  reason,  as  a  faculty,  was 
annihilated  in  Adam  or  his  posterity  by  his  sin.  The  fac- 
ulty, as  such,  still  remained  after  his  sin,  but  it  was  dark- 
ened, weakened,  corrupted — all  wrong.  Sin,  nor  any  thing 
else,  except  God,  can  annihilate  the  soul  or  body  of  man, 
or  any  faculties  thereof.  Therefore  we  do  not  mean  that 
reason  was  annihilated  in  Adam,  but  only  that  it  was  weak- 
ened and  perverted  so  that  it  did  not  apprehend  the  truth. 

Since  the  fall,  reason  in  man  cannot,  in  and  of  itself,  origi- 
nate or  discover  the  truth  or  the  law  or  the  rule  of  action. 
Reason  cannot  be  a  rule  of  human  action.  Reason,  with- 
out revelation  and  some  supernatural  and  extraneous  aid,  is 
wholly  incompetent  to  arrive  at  any  correct  knowledge,  or 
perform  any  right  thing.  With  the  divine  law  supplied 
and  made  known,  and  the  aid  of  the  light  which  cometh 
down  from  above  given,  reason  may  exercise  itself  in  test- 
ing and  judging  of  the  divine  law  as  it  is  in  itself,  and  in 
its  demands  as  a  rule  of  life;  and  reason  has  a  proper  func- 
tion in  this  behalf,  and  cannot  be  ignored  without  great  er- 
ror and  absolute  damage.  The  effort  to  exalt  reason  and 
expel  the  book  of  revelation  is  but  the  pride  originating 
in  the  blindness  of -perverted  reason.  In  support  of  the 
position  that  reason  is  a  sufficient  guide  in  matters  of  relig- 
ion, without  any  thing  superadded,  it  is  argued  that  Adam's 
discerning  faculty,  or  reason,  was  not  weakened  or  impaired, 
but  that  it  was  rather  improved,  by  his  transgression.  This 
position,  as  well  as  the  argument  adduced  in  its  support,  is 
untenable  and  unscriptural.  The  passages  of  Scripture  re- 
lied on  by  the  advocates  of  this  theory  of  reason  are  Gen, 


68  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

iii.  6,  7,  22:  "And  when  the  woman  saw  that  the  tree  was 
good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant  to  the  eyes,  and  a 
tree  to-be  desired  to  make  one  wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit 
thereof,  and  did  eat,  and  gave  also  unto  her  husband  with 
her;  and  he  did  eat.  And  the  eyes  of  them  both  were 
opened,  and  they  knew  that  they  were  naked;  and  they 
sewed  fig-leaves  together,  and  made  themselves  aprons.  .  .  . 
And  the  Lord  God  said,  Behold,  the  man  is  become  as  one 
of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil." 

In  the  first  place,  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and 
possessed  properties  to  make  one  truly  wise,  was  a  false  and 
pernicious  view  of  the  case ;  for,  according  to  the  truth  in 
the  premises,  the  tree  was  not,  under  the  circumstances, 
good  for  food,  and  had,  under  the  circumstances,  no  wisdom- 
imparting  properties.  In  the  second  place,  when  their  eyes 
were  opened  they  were  opened  to  the  fact  that  they  had 
sinned  and  lost  their  former  state  and  standing.  The  fact 
that  they  were  naked  was  not  a  discovery  first  made  by 
Adam  and  Eve  after  they  had  sinned.  They  knew  their 
nakedness  before  they  sinned,  and  knew  it  no  better  after 
they  had  sinned  than  before.  The  discovery  of  their  naked- 
ness required  no  special  exercise  or  strength  of  reason,  but 
only  the  use  of  the  natural  eyesight.  Perhaps  they  at- 
tained a  knowledge  and  view  of  things  after  they  had  sinned 
which  they  did  not  before  possess,  though  this  knowledge 
and  view  were  not  attained  through  the  medium  of  im- 
proved reason,  but  only  grew  out  of  the  existence  and  re- 
sults of  their  sin,  which  were  before  wanting.  We  are  not 
disposed  to  deny,  if  any  one  insists  on  it,  that  perhaps  they 
may  have  recovered  from  a  perverted  view  which,  by  the 
intrigues  of  Satan,  they  had  been  led  to  entertain,  and  that 
then  they  saw  actually  what  before  they  might  have  seen 
prospectively — the  evil  results  of  their  sin.  They  might 
have  known  beforehand,  as  they  had  been  told  by  God, 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  69 

that  their  sin  would  be  accompanied  by  guilt  and  attended 
by  death.  They  did  know  it  until  they  were  led  away  from 
the  truth.  They  now  realized  this  by  actual  experience, 
notwithstanding  the  blindness  and  weakness  under  which 
they  had  fallen.  In  the  third  place,  when  God  said,  "The 
man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil,"  he 
did  not  intend  to  announce  that  man,  by  his  sin,  and  since 
his  transgression,  had  become  God,  or  the  equal  of  God  in 
the  strength  and  clearness  of  his  reason  or  any  other  of  his 
faculties.  Man  had  now,  by  his  experience  under  the  facts 
of  the  case,  an  actual  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  This, 
and  nothing  more. 

The  devotees  of  reason  may  talk  of  absurdities  and  things 
unreasonable,  but  what  can  be  more  absurd  and  unreason- 
able than  that  by  his  transgressions  a  man's  understanding 
is  improved  and  his  faculties  strengthened? 

By  his  natural  reason,  unassisted,  man  cannot  compre- 
hend and  correctly  apprehend  things.  It  was  by  the  aid 
of  supernatural  light  that  Adam,  after  his  sin,  apprehended 
things,  so  far  as  he  apprehended  them  at  all.  After  his 
apostasy  Adam  was  placed  anew  on  trial,  and  under  the 
requisitions  of  God's  law.  The  obligations  to  obedience  to 
this  law  were  not  now  laid  upon  hini  because  he  retained  a 
natural  capacity  sufficiently  strong  in  itself  and  clear  in  its 
perceptions  to  apprehend  and  obey  the  law,  but  because — by 
God,  through  grace — light,  strength,  and  capacity  were  con- 
ferred upon  him  for  these  ends.  And  here  is  where  the  ar- 
gument about  the  um-easonableness  of  requiring  man  to  do, 
and  holding  him  accountable  for  not  doing,  if  reason  is  not 
a  sufficent  guide,  breaks  down.  If  there  can  be  found  on 
all  the  earth  a  human  being  destitute  of  revelation,  and 
destitute  of  supernatural  light  and  aid,  and  thus  destitute 
by  no  fault  of  his  own  or  his  ancestors,  but  only  by  the 
failure  of  God  to  give  the  revelation  and  confer  the  light 


70  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

and  aid,  then  such  an  individual  is  not  responsible  for  any 
thing  by  him  done  or  left  undone.  But  such  a  destitution 
of  revelation,  light,  and  aid  cannot  be  found.  God  has  re- 
vealed his  will  and  made  known  his  law  to  all  men,  and  if 
any  are  without  a  knowledge  thereof  it  is  because  they, 
having  eyes  to  see,  see  not,  and  having  ears  to  hear,  they 
hear  not. 

Adam,  we  have  said,  suifered  damage  in  his  will.  Not 
that  his  will,  any  more  than  his  soul,  was  annihilated.  We 
suppose  that  even  Satan,  sinful  and  lost  as  he  is,  has  a  will ; 
and  so  had  Adam,  even  when  he  had  sinned,  and  before  he 
was  recovered  from  his  sin.  There  is  not  a  moral  agent  in 
the  universe  of  God,  however  sinful,  lost,  miserable,  and 
doomed,  but  that  has  a  will.  But  the  will  of  devils  is 
averse  to  all  good,  and  so  is  that  of  a  sinful  man  aside  from 
the  prevenient  grace  of  God. 

One  sin  is  enough  to  destroy  all  inherent  goodness  and 
constitute  the  sum  of  all  guilt,  and  put  in  force  the  full 
penalty  of  all  sin.  This  is  an  avowed  and  unchangeable 
principle  of  the  divine  government;  and  all  moral  agents, 
so  far  as  they  are  liable  to  commit  sin,  are  subject  to  this 
principle.  Man,  in  his  present  condition,  is  subject  to  this 
principle  of  the  divine  law;  and  so  was  Adam  in  his  primi- 
tive state  and  trial,  as  well  as  the  angels  who  were  on  trial 
in  their  original  condition.  He  that  violates  the  law  in  one 
point  is  guilty  of  all.  "He  that  is  unjust  in  the  least  is 
unjust  also  in  much."  In  the  case  of  Adam  and  his  one 
sin  this  was  as  true  as  in  any  other  sin  and  in  any  other  in- 
dividual. Adam  suffered  deterioration  in  his  moral  feel- 
ings and  in  his  intellectual  powers.  His  whole  head  was 
sick  arid  his  whole  heart  was  faint.  In  this  sinful  state  there 
was  on  his  part  no  perception  of  the  truth  and  no  love  of 
it.  "  For  every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light."  He 
had  no  spiritual  life-giving  affiliation  with  God.  By  Adam 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  71 

both  sin  and  death  entered  into  the  world.  For  this  there 
is  specific  Scripture  declaration.  Sin  and  death  entering 
into  the  world  by  Adam,  he  could  not  be  free  from  either. 
He  could  not  sin  and  still  not  be  sinful.  He  could  not 
bring  death  into  the  world  and  then  not  be  obnoxious  to 
death  himself.  He  could  not  be  sinful,  and  at  the  same 
time  have  any  good  thing  dwelling  in  his  flesh.  He  could 
not  be  sinful,  and  at  the  same  time  not  be  subject  to  vanity 
and  the  bondage  of  corruption.  He  could  not  be  sinful 
without  being  under  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  fulfilling  the  de- 
sires of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind,  and  being  a  child  of 
wrath.  When  he  gave  himself  up  to  sin  he  gave  himself 
up  to  vile  affections.  A  rebellious  mind,  not  being  subject 
to  the  law  of  God,  is  a  carnal  mind.  Adam  rebelled,  and 
then,  possessing  a  carnal  mind,  was  sold  under  sin.  Hav- 
ing sinned,  and  having  become  thereby  sinful,  he  was  "dead 
in  trespasses  and  in  sins."  That  any  should  call  this  in 
question,  is  stranger  than  fiction. 

As  to  whether  Adam  suffered  merely  a  privation  of  orig- 
inal righteousness,  or  an  infusion  of  actual  and  positive 
evil  upon  his  apostasy,  is  to  us  of  little  consequence,  as  we 
do  not  propose  to  state  the  subject  either  way.  The  infu- 
sion of  evil  into  human  nature  by  God  is  in  no  way  in- 
volved in  the  nature  and  facts  of  the  case.  It  is  as  much 
allied  to  any  other  subject  as  that  of  the  depravity  incident 
upon  man's  apostasy.  God,  of  course,  iiever  infused  posi- 
tive evil  into  human  nature  either  at  the  creation  or  at  the 
apostasy  of  man.  But  when  Adam  sinned  original  right- 
eousness ceased,  and  he  became  positively  corrupt  and  ab- 
solutely evil  in  his  nature.  Sin  and  righteousness  cannot 
exist  together.  A  sinner  cannot  be  holy;  and  where  there 
is  not  holiness  there  is  corruption.  Guilty,  corrupt,  dead 
spiritually,  under  sentence  of  temporal  and  eternal  death, 
and  the  Divine  wrath  resting  upon  him,  Adam  was  sent 


72  The  Old  and  the  New  M«n  : 

forth  from  the  garden.  He  was  ushered  out  of  the  garden, 
standing  upon  the  threshold  of  a  redemptive  dispensation, 
in  which  were  involved  the  issues  and  contingencies  of  life 
and  death. 

Death,  which  is  the  antithesis  of  life,  fell  upon  Adam  as 
certainly  as  the  passages  hereunto  attached  are  true:  "The 
wages  of  sin  is  death;"  "By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin."  If  sin  produces  death  temporal 
in  the  case  of  other  individuals,  it  did  so  in  the  case  of 
Adam.  If  sin  produces  death  spiritual  in  the  case  of  other 
individuals,  it  did  so  in  the  case  of  Adam.  If  sin  places 
other  individuals  under  liability  to  eternal  death,  it  placed 
Adam  under  the  same  liability.  Any  logic  which  would 
insist  on  any  other  conclusion  is  worse  than  sophistry. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  73 


CHAPTER  VI, 

THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF 
THE  FIRST  MAN. 

~\\  7"~AS  Adam's  sin  in  eating  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of 
V  V  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  only  personal,  and 
did  the  consequences  thereof  terminate  in  himself,  or  did 
they  reach  to  and  involve  his  posterity  ?  Here  are  points 
of  greatest  moment.  From  the  time,  at  least,  of  Pelagius 
to  the  present,  various  and  antagonistic  views  have  been 
maintained  on  these  points  by  different  persons ;  and  there 
is  as  much  opposition  to  the  true  doctrine  now  as  at  any 
day  during  the  controversy.  The  great  body  of  the  Church, 
however,  has  been  settled  all  the  while  on  the  true  founda- 
tions in  the  premises. 

Pelagius,  generally  reputed  a  Briton  by  birth  (though  of 
this  there  is  some  doubt),  who  lived  a  good  while  at  Rome, 
and  who  flourished  in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century, 
believed  and  taught — if  he  has  been  correctly  represented 
by  St.  Augustine,  who  was  his  antagonist — that  "Adam's  sin 
injured  only  himself,  and  not  the  human  race,  and  that  in- 
fants at  their  birth  are  in  the  same  state  that  Adam  was  be- 
fore his  transgression."  Though  when  he  was  on  trial  be- 
fore the  authorities  of  the  Church  for  heresy,  he  said :  "  In- 
fants are  not  in  the  same  state  in  which  Adam  was  before 
his  transgression,  because  they  are  not  yet  able  to  under- 
stand the  commandment,  whereas  he  was  able ;  and  because 
they  do  not  yet  possess  that  choice  of  a  rational  will  which 
he  indeed  possessed,  for  otherwise  no  commandment  would 
have  been  given  to  him."  This  last  pcsitiou  is  no  recanta- 


74  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

tion  or  denial  of  the  other,  though  it  was  so  regarded  by 
his  antagonists.  One  is  no  contradiction  of  the  other. 
Pelagius  constantly  and  uniformly  held  that  "nothing 
good  and  nothing  evil,  on  account  of  which  we  are  deemed 
either  laudable  or  blameworthy,  is  born  with  us,  that  we 
are  formed  naturally  without  either  virtue  or  vice,  and  pre- 
vious to  the  action  of  our  own  proper  will,  the  only  thing 
in  man  is  what  God  has  formed  in  him."  He  constantly 
said:  "Sin  is  not  born  with  a  man,  is  not  the  fault  of  nat- 
ure, but  of  the  human  will."  He  held  that  original  sin,  so 
far  as  the  descendants  of  Adam  are  concerned,  consists  in 
sins  committed  by  them  in  imitation  of  the  example  of 
Adam,  the  first  sinner,  and  not  in  an  evil  nature  communi- 
cated by  natural  descent.  He  maintained  that  Adam  was 
created  neither  holy  nor  unholy;  that  he  was  naturally 
mortal,  and  would  have  died  had  he  not  sinned;  that  every 
one  when  born  is  in  these  respects  just  as  Adam  was  at  his 
creation. 

Dr.  John  Taylor,  to  whom  we  have  referred  in  a  previ- 
ous chapter,  rejects  and  denounces  the  doctrine  of  the  im- 
putation of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity.  He  also  anathe- 
matizes the  doctrine  that  infants  are  liable  to  punishment 
at  all,  although  he  admits  that  they  suffer.  The  following 
are  some  of  his  utterances,  found  in  his  work  on  "Original 
Sin:" 

"  The  real  guilt  of  our  first  parents'  transgression  must  be 
personal,  and  belong  only  to  themselves."  "  Imputed  guilt 
is  imaginary  guilt."  "I  cannot  find  in  all  the  Scripture 
that  one  man's  sin  is  ever  said  to  be  imputed  to  another, 
or,  in  particular,  that  Adam's  sin  is  ever  said  to  be  imputed 
to  his  posterity."  "  Infants  coming  into  the  world  with  sin- 
ful nature  is  only  imagined  and  supposed,  but  neither  is 
nor  can  possibly  be  proved."  "  We  are  born  neither  right- 
eous nor  sinful,  but  capable  of  being  either,  as  we  improve 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  75 

or  neglect  the  goodness  of  God,  who  sends  every  man  into 
the  world  under  his  blessing." 

In  fact,  he  taught,  as  we  have  shown  in  a  preceding 
chapter,  that  Adam  was  not  created  holy,  and  that  his  apos- 
tasy, even  so  far  as  he  himself  was  concerned,  was  not  "  a 
falling  from  a  state  of  perfect  holiness,  but  a  falling  short 
of  such  a  state."  Strange  as  it  may  appear  after  all  this, 
Dr.  Taylor  admits"  that  Adam's  posterity  are  involved  in 
the  consequences  of  his  sin  so  far  as  they  suffer  the  death 
of  the  body.  He  says:  "  The  true  answer  to  this  question, 
How  far  are  you  involved  in  the  consequences  of  Adam's 
sin?  is  this:  We  are  thereby,  or  thereupon,  subject  to  tem- 
poral sorrow,  labor,  and  death." 

Dr.  Albert  T.  Bledsoe,  in  his  writings,  following  in  the 
track  of  Taylor,  renounces  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity.  He  denies  that  children 
are  born  guilty  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  and  also  denies 
that  they  are  liable  to  punishment  on  account  thereof.  He 
denies  native  or  inborn  depravity.  He  calls  the  doctrine 
of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  a  "  dark 
film,"  which  he  says  we  ought  to  "  wipe  out."  He  insists 
that  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  is  not 
consistent  with  the  goodness  of  God,  nor  with  human  good- 
ness. He  says:  "This  scheme  of  imputation,  so  far  from 
being  an  expression  of  infinite  goodness,  were  indeed  an 
exhibition  of  the  most  frightful  cruelty  and  injustice."  In 
another  place:  "There  are  few  persons  whose  feelings  will 
allow  them  to  be  consistent  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin."  (See  "  Theodicy,"  pp.  250, 
255,  259.)  Again,  he  writes  it  out  in  this  style:  "A  theo- 
logian may  eat  and  sleep  and  suffer  on  higher  principles 
than  mere  animals  do;  but  we  seriously  doubt  if  infants 
ever  eat  or  sleep  or  suffer  on  any  higher  principles."  "  Fo:r 
these  reasons,  we  refuse  to  justify  the  sufferings  of  infants, 


76  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

on  the  ground  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  to  them." 
("Theodicy,"  pp.  267,  272.)  Dr.  Bledsoe  quotes  the  theo- 
ry of  Arrainius  on  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  pos- 
terity, and  says  of  it:  "That  such  a  theory  should  ever 
have  obtained  in  the  Christian  world  is  certainly  a  mo.st 
impressive  and  instructive  historical  fact.  It  does  not  de- 
serve, and,  at  the  present  day,  it  does  not  demand,  a  serious 
refutation."  (Southern  Review,  April,  1871,  pp.  253,  254.) 
In  this  same  article  of  this  Review,  p.  288,  he  sets  forth  his 
own  hypothesis  upon  the  sinfulness  of  infants,  as  follows: 
"We  assume  the  position  that  newborn  infants  have  no 
moral  character  at  all.  In  so  far  as  the  transgression  of 
the  moral  law  is  concerned,  they  are  perfectly  innocent, 
never  having  incurred  its  penalty  by  any  thing  they  have 
thought  or  done  or  desired.  In  the  eye  of  the  moral  law, 
infinitely  pure  as  it  is,  there  is  no  transgression  in  them." 

We  have  already  given,  in  a  previous  chapter,  his  utter- 
ances against  the  position  that  Adam  was  created  holy. 

These  authors — Pelagius,  Taylor,  and  Bledsoe — to  whom 
we  have  referred,  all  manifestly  agree  in  the  substantial 
points  concerning  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his 
posterity.  Their  positions  are  identical,  and  their  argu- 
ments much  alike — often  the  same. 

The  true  doctrine  is  that  the  race  are,  through  Adam, 
gone  away  from  original  .righteousness — that  is,  the  right- 
eousness in  which  Adam  was  created — and  are  now  by  nat- 
ure inclined  only  to  evil.  All  are  born  in  sin — born  with 
a  corrupt  or  sinful  nature.  As  the  poet  expresses  it: 

We  are  vile,  conceived  in  sin, 
And  born  unholy  and  unclean. 

Corruption  did  not  and  does  not  originate  in  bad  exam- 
ple, but  is  by  natural  descent;  it  is  innate. 

Adam's  sin  in  the  garden  was  an  individual  sin  in  that 
lie  sinned  in  his  own  person,  and  for  himself.  But  then  his 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation,  77 

sin  was  the  act  of  one  in  a  representative  capacity,  and  the 
consequences  of  his  sinful  act  reached  to  and  involved  his 
posterity.  All  who  have  come  into  actual  existence  by 
propagation  from  Adam  have  come  into  existence  under 
the  malediction  of  Adam's  sin,  arid  obnoxious  to  all  its  pe- 
nal consequences.  Adam  was,  under  the  law  of  his  being, 
and  under  the  law  to  which  he  was  amenable,  the  head  and 
representative  of  his  posterity.  Under  the  law  of  his  being, 
he  was  the  natural  head  of  his  race.  This  is  self-evident. 
.  He  is  the  father  of  all.  In  a  previous  chapter  we  have  no- 
ticed the  fact  that  all  descend  from  Adam  by  propagation. 
There  is  an  essential  connection  between  Adam  and  his 
posterity  in  the  entire  nature  of  body  and  soul.  Under 
the  moral  lawr,  to  which  he  was  amenable,  Adam  was  the 
head  and  representative  of  his  race.  He  was  made  to  prop- 
agate his  race,  and  the  legal  provisions  of  the  covenant  un- 
der which  he  was  placed  in  the  garden  embraced  his  chil- 
dren ;  and  thus  he  was  allied  to  his  posterity  not  only  by 
nature,  but  in  law.  In  the  legal  covenants  made  with  him 
and  bound  upon  him,  he  was  constituted  and  recognized  as 
the  head  and  representative  of  those  who  were  seminally  in 
him  and  were  to  spring  from  him.  The  Scriptures,  inci- 
dentally and  otherwise,  present  this  truth  in  many  places. 
Adam  stood  at  the  threshold  of  time,  and  at  the  beginning 
of  a  moral  dispensation  in  a  natural  and  legal  relation  to  a 
race  seminally  contained  in  him.  In  the  nature  of  the  case, 
as  this  moral  dispensation  commenced  in  him,  and  its  legal 
obligations  were  laid  upon  him,  and  its  legal  consequences 
were  bound  up  with  his  actions  in  the  premises — and  as  this 
dispensation  commenced  in  the  recognition  of  the  poster- 
ity to  proceed  from  him,  and  in  provision  for  that  posterity — 
he  was  the  contracting  head  and  legal  representative  of  the 
same.  This  must  be  admitted.  If  God  had  created  Adam 
as  he  did  the  angels,  singly  and  alone,  without  the  capaci- 


78  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

ties  and  purposes  of  propagation,  and  placed  him  as  he  did 
them  on  trial  for  himself  alone,  the  consequences  of  his  con- 
duct could  have  terminated  only  on  himself.  But  he  made 
him,  and  entered  upon  the  government  of  him,  with  his  pos- 
terity included  and  involved.  God  made  them  male  and 
female,  and  said  unto  them,  "  Multiply  and  replenish  the 
earth  and  subdue  it,  and  have  dominion  over  it."  It  is  use- 
less to  think  of  Adam  separate  from  his  posterity.  God 
projected  his  dispensation  for  Adam,  and  established  his 
government  over  him  with  his  posterity  included  and  in- 
volved. The  very  dominion  which  Adam  was  commis- 
sioned to  attain  over  the  earth  was  to  be  secured  and  main- 
tained by  and  through  his  posterity,  whom  he  represented. 
The  representative  character  and  relation  of  Adam  is  clear- 
ly presented  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  45:  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die, 
even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.  .  .  .  The  first  man 
Adam  was  made  a  living  soul ;  the  last  Adam  was  made  a 
quickening  spirit."  Whatever  else  these  passages  may 
teach,  and  whatever  else  may  be  involved  in  a  complete 
interpretation  of  these  scriptures,  they  bring  out  the  repre- 
sentative relations  of  Adam  the  first  man  and  of  Christ  the 
God-man.  There  can  be  no  question  but  that  Adam  and 
Christ  are  presented  here  in  their  relations  to  the  whole 
race.  Their  relations  to  the  race  are  such  as  can  be  pred- 
icated of  no  other  man  or  men.  These  relations  stand  con- 
nected with  sin  and  its  consequences  in  and  upon  the  race. 
Adam  has  a  representative  relation  to  the  race  in  the  ori- 
igin  of  sin  and  death ;  and  Christ  has  a  representative  rela- 
tion to  the  race  in  the  provisions  for  the  removal  and  cure 
of  sin  and  death.  The  purpose  of  the  apostle  is  so  pointed 
and  absolute  that  he  presents  their  representative  and  legal 
relations  to  the  race  by  calling  them  both  Adam.  Adam 
and  Christ  stand  equally  related  legally  and  representative- 
ly to  mankind.  Adam,  the  progenitor  of  the  race,  is  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  70 

"  one  man"  by  whom  "  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
by  sin."  Christ,  the  Messiah,  the  Second  Adam,  "  is  the 
Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world." 
Adam  is  the  man  by  whom  "  came  death."  Christ  is  the 
man  by  whom  "  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead." 
Adam  is  the  one  by  whose  "offense"  "judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation."  Christ  is  the  one  by  whoso 
"  righteousness "  "  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  in  order 
to  justification  of  life."  Adam  is  the  one  by  whose  "  diso- 
bedience many  were  made  sinners."  Christ  is  the  one  by 
whose  "obedience  many  shall  be  made  righteous."  These 
are  plain  Scripture  truths  which  no  one  can  reject  without 
a  flat  denial  of  the  word  of  God.  These  are  truths  which 
no  metaphysical  jargon  or  pretended  learned  lore  should  be 
allowed  to  mystify.  Adam's  sin  was  transmitted  to  his  pos- 
terity by  generation.  Corruption  is  by  natural  descent;  it 
is  inborn,  and  not  acquired  by  the  imitation  of  bad  exam- 
ple, nor  by  the  formation  of  evil  habits.  It  is  true  that  the 
following  of  bad  example,  the  performance  of  wicked  deeds, 
and  the  indulgence  of  evil  habits,  will  and  do  corrupt;  but 
what  we  insist  on  in  this  connection  is  that  this  corruption 
of  nature  exists  prior  to  the  imitation  of  bad  example,  and 
is  antecedent  to  the  performance  of  any  wicked  deeds,  and 
the  formation  of  any  evil  habits.  By  virtue  of  this  inborn 
corruption,  Adam's  offspring  arc  sinful  at  their  birth.  This 
inborn  corruption  is  of  the  nature  of  sin.  Every  thing  pro- 
duces its  like.  The  lion  produces  a  lion;  the  horse,  a  horse; 
an  oak,  an  oak ;  etc.  No  one  "  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out 
of  an  unclean,"  and  so  Adam,  fallen  and  corrupt  as  he  was, 
"  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image."  And 
every  child  of  Adam  may  truly  say :  "  Behold,  I  was  shap- 
en  in  iniquity;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me." 
Inspiration  records  the  mournful  fact  that  "the  wicked  are 
estranged  from  the  womb;  they  go  astray  r.s  soon  as  they  be 


80  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

born,  speaking  lies; "  while  the  Son  of  God  declares,  "  That 
which  is  bcrii  of  the  flesh  is  flesh; "  and  the  apostle  teaches 
that  "  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners." 
There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  "  carnal  mind,"  which  is  "  enmity 
against  God,"  and  a  heart  in  every  man  born  into  the  world 
that  "is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked;" 
and  it  is  moreover  true  that  "  out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil 
thoughts,  murders,  adulteries,  fornications,  thefts,  false  wit- 
ness, blasphemies."  From  age  to  age  this  corruption  has 
been  transmitted  by  generation.  All  being  born  with 
wicked  and  deceitful  hearts,  out  of  which  proceed  evil 
thoughts,  murders,  etc.,  "there  is  not  a  just  man  upon  earth 
that  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not."  "There  is  none  right- 
eous; no,  not  one." 

Adam's  sin  was  imputed  to  his  posterity  in  legal  admin- 
istration. Rom.  v.  16,  18,  19  may  be  adduced  as  positive 
authority  for  this  assertion :  "  The  judgment  was  by  one 
to  condemnation.  .  .  .  By  the  offense  of  one  judgment  came 
upon  all  men  to  condemnation.  .  .  .  By  one  man's  disobedi- 
ence many  were  made  sinners."  Here  are  judicial  terms. 
They  describe  judicial  proceedings  in  the  administration 
of  government,  and  in  the  execution  of  law.  The  govern- 
ment was  administered,  and  the  law  was  executed.  The 
judgment  rendered  passed  sentence  of  condemnation  against 
the  offense  and  upon  the  offender.  The  sentence  of  con- 
demnation, for  this  one  offense  of  this  one  man  Adam,  was 
issued  against  and  imposed  upon  all  men.  By  this  one 
man's  one  disobedience,  all  men,  his  whole  posterity,  were 
constituted  sinners.  Human  language  could  not  be  more 
direct  or  pointed.  No  words  could  more  emphatically  de- 
clare that  Adam's  sin  has  been  charged  to  his  children,  and 
that  these  children  are  constituted  sinners  thereby,  and  con- 
demned and  punished  therefor,  than  do  these  words  of  the 
apostle. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  81 

1 

The  Lord,  in  the  administration  of  his  government  over 
Adam,  and  the  execution  of  his  law  against  Adam's  sin, 
issued  a  sentence  of  condemnation  against  his  posterity,  and 
this  judicial  sentence  places  all  men  from  their  birth  under 
the  full  penalty  of  Adam's  offense. 
6 


82  The  Old  and  the  New  M>m . 


CHAPTER  VII, 

THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OP 
THE  FIRST  MAN. 

RTAIN  objections  are  urged  against  the  doctrines 
that  \ve  are  maintaining  which  it  is  eminently  prop- 
er to  consider.  These  objections  we  shall  investigate,  and 
by  the  help  of  the  Divine  Word,  and  by  the  guidance  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  shall  endeavor  to  refute  and  cast  them 
away  from  the  temple  of  truth. 

Xot  only  the  doctrines  are  objected  to,  but  the  terms  in 
which  they  are  usually  expressed.  The  terms  "federal 
head,"  "legal  representative,"  "original  sin,"  "imputed 
sin,"  "natural  corruption,"  and  others,  are  all  animadverted 
upon  by  those  who  oppose  the  orthodox  view  of  the  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  first  sin.  Those  who  raise  these  objec- 
tions insist  on  a  use  of  Bible  terms  and  Scripture  phrase- 
ology, and  also  of  terms  of  ancient  and  primitive  date. 
They  insist  that  these  terms  objected  to  are  neither  Bible 
terms  nor  of  ancient  times.  Suppose  we  should  concede  that 
none  of  them  are  exact  phrases  of  the  Bible,  and  that  they 
are  all  of  recent  date.  We  are  persuaded  that  this  conces- 
sion would  by  no  means  condemn  their  use  as  theological 
terms.  It  would  by  no  means  follow  that  they  should  be 
repudiated.  It  would  by  no  means  follow  that  they  are 
misleading,  or  that  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  their  use  are 
unscriptural.  Perhaps  these  terms  are  not  absolutely  nec- 
essary to  the  correct  statement  and  proper  defense  of  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  83 

doctrines  with  which  they  are  connected,  and  in  whose  elu- 
cidation they  are  employed.  As  mere  terms,  perhaps,  the 
theological  world  could  dispense  with  their  use  without  any 
great  detriment;  but  as  mere  terms  of  language,  they  are 
innocent,  correct,  clear,  dignified,  and  comprehensive.  As 
theological  terms,  they  are  perhaps  as  appropriate  and 
scriptural  as  any  that  could  be  chosen.  In  truth,  there  are 
none  better.  We  have  never  yet  seen  a  system  of  theol- 
ogy which  confined  itself  exclusively  to  the  use  of  Script- 
ure terms  and  words.  Those  who  have  insisted  most  on  an 
exclusive  use  of  the  words  of  Scripture,  when  they  were 
discussing  doctrines,  have  been  farthest  from  the  exclusive 
use  of  the  words  of  Scripture  when  formulating  a  creed. 
Arians  and  Pelagians  are  as  far  from  an  exclusive  use  of 
Scripture  language  as  any  writers  known  in  the  history  of 
the  Church.  They  use  such  terms  as  "imitating  Adam," 
"voluntary  acts,"  "habits,"  " concreated,"  "etc.,  Avhich  we 
are  sure  are  not  Bible  terms. 

But  let  us  examine  those  terms  objected  to  separately, 
together  with  the  doctrines  which  they  embody. 

FEDERAL  HEAD  AND  LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVE. 

When  we  investigate  the  subject  we  find  that  the  objec- 
tion urged  against  this  phraseology  grows  out  of  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  taught  thereby  more  than  to  the  phraseology 
itself.  Some  authors,  while  urging  what  they  esteem  very 
serious  objections  against  the  term  "federal  head/'  yet  ad- 
mit that  Adam  was  the  natural  head  of  the  race.  The  Bi- 
ble is  as  devoid  of  the  phrase  "natural  head"  as  of  the 
phrase  "federal  head."  The  federal  headship  grows,  in 
part  at  least,  out  of  the  natural  headship.  The  admission 
of  the  former  is  a  concession  of  the  latter.  Adam  being 
the  natural  head  of  the  race,  and  being  corrupt  and  sinful 
when  his  children  proceeded  from  him,  he  transmitted  to 


84  The  Old  and  the  New 


them,  through  natural  generation,  his  own  corrupt  and  sin- 
ful nature,  and  so  they  are  all  born  corrupt  and  sinful. 

John  Taylor,  Arian  as  he  was,  and  denying,  as  he  did 
throughout  his  book  on  "  Original  "Sin,"  that  Adam  was  the 
federal  head  and  legal  representative  of  his  race,  neverthe- 
less makes  concessions,  when  expounding  the  fifth  chapter 
of  Romans,  which  really  concede  the  truth  that  Adam  was 
the  federal  head  and  legal  representative  of  his  race.  In 
this  exposition  he  writes  the  following  sentences:  "The  ju- 
dicial act  which  followed  Adam's  sin  took  its  rise  from  his 
one  offense  alone,  and  terminated  in  condemnation."  "Men 
are  subject  to  death,  not  from  their  own  personal  sins,  but 
from  the  sin  of  Adam."  "  Death  must  be  understood  to 
have  passed  upon  all  mankind,  not  for  that  they  all  have 
sinned  really,  properly,  and  personally,  but  they  have  sinned, 
are  made  sinners,  are  subjected  to  death,  through  the  one  of- 
fense of  one  man  —  that  is,  of  Adam."  "It  is  evident  that 
the  apostle  draws  a  -comparison  between  Adam  and  Christ: 
something  that  Adam  did,  and  the  consequences  of  that; 
and  something  that  Christ  did,  and  the  consequences  of 
that."  "It  is  quite  undeniable  that  all,  all  mankind,  die; 
all  are  mortal;  all  lose  their  life  in  Adam."  ("Original 
Sin,"  pp.  25,  38,  53,  59,  61.)  In  these  sentences  this'  author 
says  that  the  apostle  makes  a  comparison  between  Adam 
and  Christ;  that  by  the  one  sin  of  Adam  all  mankind  are 
made  sinners;  that  condemnation  resulted  by  a  judicial  act 
following  the  sin  of  Adam  ;  and  that  all  are  subjected  to 
death,  not  for  personal  sins,  but  the  alone  sin  of  Adam.  By 
death,  however,  he  means  only  temporal  death,  and  by  be- 
ing made  sinners  he  means  only  being  subjected  to  temporal 
death.  But  he  has  here  said  all  that  we  have  said,  or  care 
to  say,  when  we  set  forth  the  federal  headship  and  repre- 
sentative relation  of  Adam  to  his  posterity,  except  that  we 
teach  that  Adam's  sin  was  visited  upon  his  posterity,  not 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  85 

only  in  temporal  death,  but  in  actual  spiritual  death,  and  a 
liability  to  eternal  death ;  and  that  by  being  made  sinners 
we  mean  more  than  being  subjected  to  temporal  death.  If 
physical  death  was  visited  upon  all,  and  judicially  passed 
and  announced  upon  all  for  Adam's  sin,  as  Taylor  here 
teaches,  why  not  spiritual  death  as  well?  What  principle 
of  philosophy  or  of  ethics  would  be  violated  or  invaded  by 
the  falling  of  spiritual  death  upon  his  posterity  for  his  sin 
that  would  not  be  equally  violated  and  invaded  by  tem- 
poral death  falling  upon  them  for  his  sin?  We  hesitate  not 
to  answer,  None  whatever. 

Bay  what  we  may,  descant  ever  so  learnedly,  make  ever 
so  many  pleas  for  justice,  go  into  ever  so  many  ecstasies  in 
admiration  of  goodness,  and  parade  ever  so  many  difficul- 
ties, after  all,  and  in  defiance  of  all,  there  is  a  Scripture 
view  of  the  case  which  recognizes  Adam's  posterity  as  be- 
ing in  him  at  the  time  he  sinned,  and  acting  in  and  by 
him.  "  Levi  also,  who  receiveth  tithes,  paid  tithes  in  Abra- 
ham. For  he  was  yet  in  the  loins  of  his  father,  when 
Melchisedec  met  him."  (Heb.  vii.  9,  10.)  There  was  a 
sense  in  which  the  apostle  could  and  did  say  that  Levi  paid 
tithes  by  Abraham  while  he  was  yet  in  the  loins  of  Abra- 
ham. In  the  same  sense,  and  in  like  manner,  it  may  and 
should  be  said  that  Adam's  posterity,  who  were  in  his  loins 
when  he  transgressed  the  law  of  God,  sinned  in  or  by  him. 
It  has  been  said  there  "  is  a  constituted  oneness  of  the  hu- 
man race,"  and  this  we  emphasize;  but  this  does  not  mean 
that  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  "one  person."  Adam's 
posterity  sinned  in  him  as  their  head.  This  we  maintain ; 
but  it  does  not  mean  that  they  "participated  individually 
in  the  first  sin."  The  mere  fact  that  Adam's  posterity  were 
in  his  loins  does  not,  of  course,  prove  that  "  their  nature 
contracted  a  propensity  to  sin,"  but  being  in  his  loins,  they 
proceed  from  him  with  a  corrupted  or  sinful  nature,  and  by 


The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 


virtue  of  this  sinful  nature  there  is  in  them  from  their  birth 
a  propensity  to  sin.  The  posterity  being  naturally  in  Adam, 
and  legally  considered  and  provided  for  as  in  him  at  the 
time  he  sinned,  as  \ve  have  shown  they  were,  it  is  strictly 
true  that  naturally  and  legally  they  sinned  in  and  by  him. 
This  is  manifest  and  conclusive. 

ORIGINAL  SIN. 

What  reasonable  objection  can  be  alleged  against  this 
phrase?  The  word  "original,"  simply  as  a  word,  is  proper 
and  unexceptionable,  and  so  is  the  word  "sin."  The  phrase 
is  used  in  allusion  to  Adam's  first  transgression,  which  was 
the  first  human  sin,  and  the  origin  of  moral  evil,  so  far  as 
moral  evil  pertains  to  the  human  race.  It  is  also  used  to 
designate  the  corruption  natural  to  the  offspring  of  Adam. 
Perhaps  there  are  no  other  words  in  the  language  Avhich 
could  so  concisely  and  forcibly  set  forth  the  whole  subject 
as  these  two  words,  "original  sin."  What  phrase  could  be 
substituted  for  this?  It  certainly  makes  no  special  differ- 
ence when  or  by  whom  this  phrase  was  first  brought  into 
use.  If  it  properly  expresses  and  presents  the  doctrine  it 
is  intended  to  embody  and  formulate,  even  though  the  doc- 
trine itself  be  false,  it  is  frivolous  to  object  to  it  as  a  phrase, 
originate  when  or  by  Avhom  it  may.  It  has  become  a  stand- 
ard phrase,  having  been  almost  universally  adopted  by  the 
Christian  Church.  This  is  a  testimony  in  its  favor. 

IMPUTED  SIN. 

This  is  a  term  against  which,  together  with  the  term  "  im- 
puted guilt,"  objection  is  alleged.  By  imputed  sin  is  meant 
the  sin  of  Adam  imputed  to  his  offspring.  "  Imputed  "  is 
a  Bible  term,  and  "  imputed  sin"  is  a  phrase  sufficiently 
concise  and  comprehensive  to  serve  admirably  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  used.  What  we  have  said  in  advocacy  of 
the  term  "  original  sin  "  may  be  said  also  in  defense  of  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  87 

term  "  imputed  sin."  We  would  not  hesitate  to  give  up 
this,  and  all  the  other  terms  objected  to,  if  better  could  be 
substituted  for  them.  '  We  are  no  sticklers  for  mere  phrase- 
ology; but  the  doctrines  taught  through  the  use  of  these 
phrases  are  fundamental,  and  cannot  be  renounced.  Vital 
and  scriptural  doctrines  must  not  be  expunged  from  the 
creeds  of  Christendom  out  of  regard  for  a  sneer  at  a  phrase. 
It  is  much  easier  to  scoff  at  phraseology  than  to  frame  a 
logical  argument  or  produce  a  sound  reason. 

Before  dismissing  the  phrases  "original  sin"  and  "imput- 
ed sin,"  and  while  connecting  with  them  the  phrase  "nat- 
ural corruption,"  we  must  discuss  the  question,  AVhat  is  sin? 

Does  the  true  nature  and  proper  definition  of  sin  author- 
ize us  to  call  the  inherent  corruption  of  nature  sin?  Can 
we  properly  call  the  native  corruption  of  the  heart  sin? 
Can  \ve  predicate  sin  of  character?  Can  we  apply  the  term 
sin  to  the  depravity  of  character?  or  does  it  apply  exclusive- 
ly to  an  act  by  which  the  law  of  God  is  violated?  Is  sin 
an  act,  and  not  a  state?  an  act,  and  not  a  quality?  Here 
are  the  points  involved  in  the  question,  What  is  sin? 

There  are  various  passages  of  Scripture  which  indicate 
different  kinds  and  degrees  of  sin,  but  there  are  none  which 
say  or  intimate  that  nothing  is  sin  but  an  act,  neither  any 
which  say  sin  is  nothing  but  a  voluntary  act.  A  sinful  act 
is  sin.  Some  acts  of  some  creatures  are  sinful.  An  act  to 
be  sin  or  sinful  must  be  the  voluntary  act  of  a  moral  agent, 
and  it  must  be  an  act  which  violates^,  moral  law  author- 
ized and  in  force.  An  act  coerced  is  subject  to  no  blame, 
and  entitled  to  no  praise,  so  far  as  the  party  coerced  is  con- 
cerned. An  act  done  without  the  consent  and  choice  of  the 
will  of  the  actor,  if  considered  his  act,  is  without  moral 
quality.  If  this  act  has  any  moral  quality,  it  derives  it  from 
the  part  taken  in  it  by  the  being  who  forced  the  non-con- 
senting actor  to  its  performance.  "  Sin  is  the  transgression 


88  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


of  the  law."  This  is  a  Scripture  definition,  and  no  one  can 
call  it  in  question,  but  it  is  never  once  intimated  that  trans- 
gression, or  sin,  exists  exclusively  in  an  act.  Any  state,  or 
condition,  that  is  repugnant  to  the  law  of  God  is  sin.  Any 
thing  impinging  the  law  of  God,  whether  it  be  condition, 
thought,  desire,  principle,  or  act,  is  sin.  "All  unrighteous- 
ness is  sin."  This  is  the  word  of  Scripture.  "The  thought 
of  foolishness  is  sin."  So  taught  Solomon.  "The  carnal 
mind  is  enmity  against  God."  Surely  enmity  against  God  is 
sin.  Surely  a  carnal  mind  is  not  an  act,  but  is  a  condition, 
or  character,  of  nature. 

The  apostle  Paul  calls  the  inherent  nature  the  corrupt 
disposition,  and  the  unrighteous  propensities  belonging  to 
all  unregenerate  persons,  sin.  He  writes  to  the  Komaus: 
"But  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  For  that  which  I  do,  I 
allow  not:  for,  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not;  but  what  I 
hate,  that  do  I.  If  then  I  do  that  which  I  would  not, 
I  consent  unto  the  law  that  it  is  good.  Now  then  it  is  no 
more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  For  I  know 
that  in  me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing: 
for  to  will  is  present  with  me;  but  how  to  perform  that 
which  is  good  I  find  not.  For  the  good  that  I  would,  I  do 
not;  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do.  Now  if  I 
do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that 
dwelleth  in  me."  (Chapter  vii.  14-20.) 

By  such  terms  as  "that  I  do  not"  and  "that  do  I,"  the 
apostle  directly  refers  to  deeds  or  acts.  By  such  terms  as 
"carnal"  and  "sin  tnat  dwelleth  in  me,"  he  cannot  possi- 
bly make  allusion  to  deeds  or  acts.  In  these  he  alludes  to 
that  which  pertains  to  being,  nature,  character,  tempers,  dis- 
positions, that  which  is  in  the  man.  An  act  cannot  dwell 
in  any  one:  sin  does  dwell  in  an  unregenerate  man;  there- 
fore something  else  is  sin  besides  an  act.  The  corruption 
and  wickedness  natural  to  the  human  heart  since  the  apos- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  89 

tasy  of  Adam  is  certainly  out  of  harmony  with  the  law  of 
God,  and  antagonistic  to  God  himself,  and  consequently  is  sin. 
For  whatever  is  antagonistic  to  God  and  his  law  is  sin.  The 
human  heart,  born  corrupt,  is  sinful.  Moral  corruption  is 
*in,  whether  it  be  inborn  or  superinduced  by  a  life  of  prof- 
ligacy. It  is  insisted  by  some  that  whatever  is  natural  to 
us,  that  whatever  is  born  in  and  with  us,  cannot  be  sin. 
"  If  we  come  into  the  world  infected  and  depraved  with 
sinful  dispositions,  then  sin  must  be  natural  to  us;  and 
if  natural,  then  necessary ;  and  if  necessary,  then  no  sin." 
(Taylor.)  "  Make  this  inherited  disease,  or  disorder,  or  de- 
pravity, as  great  and  as  terrible  as  you  please ;  make  it,  if  you 
choose,  the  inexhaustible  source  or  occasion  of  all  the  world's 
overflowing  and  frightful  wickedness ;  but  do  not  call  it  sin. 
....  We  could  not  help  coming  into  the  world  with  a  fall- 
en and  depraved  nature;  and  hence,  however  fearful  the 
fall  and  depravity,  this  makes  us  an  object  of  God's  com- 
passion only,  and  not  of  his  -wrath  and  indignation."  "  It 
is  of  the  very  essence  of  sin  that  it  be  an  exercise  of  the 
will."  "We  say  then  that  there  never  can  be  virtue  or 
vice  in  the  breast  of  a  moral  agent  prior  to  his  own  actings 
and  doings."  (Bledsoe.) 

It  is  a  strange  error  which  makes  virtue  synonymous  with 
choice  or  obedience,  and  vice  synonymous  with  choice  and 
disobedience.  It  is  an  equally  strange  error  which  makes 
love  and  obedience  synonymous.  Obedience,  instead  of 
being  love,  is  the  result  of  love  and  the  evidence  of  its  ex- 
istence. 

Men  may  not  be  entitled  to  any  praise  for  any  gift  be- 
stowed upon  them  by  the  Divine  power,  and,  likewise,  they 
may  not  be  obnoxious  to  any  condemnation  for  the  want  of 
any  gift  witheld  by  the  Divine  hand;  but  a  being  is  good 
if  it  is  good,  and  may  be  declared  good  for  moral  goodness 
in  it,  and  admired  for  this,  whether  the  moral  goodness  was 


90  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

'. ^_____ 

concreated  or  otherwise;  and  a  being  is  wicked  if  it  is 
wicked,  and  may  be  declared  vicious  for  moral  degeneracy 
in  it"  whether  the  moral  degeneracy  was  inborn  or  acquired 
by  acts  of  profligacy. 

A  necessitated  volition  is  verily  impossible,  and  God  can- 
not impart  holiness  to  an  adult  sinner,  or  make  a  new  creat- 
ure of  him  without  his  consent  and  choice,  but  a  concreated 
holiness  is  not  an  absurdity  nor  an  impossibility.  God  can- 
not force  sin  upon  an  intelligent  moral  agent,  but  then  a 
child  descending  from  fallen  and  depraved  Adam  may  be 
born  with  a  corrupt  and  sinful  nature.  Necessity  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  innate  depravity  or  indwelling  sin,  and  there 
is  nothing  more  fallacious  than  the  arguments  which  join 
the  two  together.  The  scheme  of  necessity  may  be  based 
on  a  false  psychology,  directed  against  a  false  issue,  sup- 
ported by  false  logic,  fortified  by  false  conceptions,  recom- 
mended by  falso  analogies,  rendered  plausible  by  a  false 
phraseology,  originate  in  a  false  method,  and  terminate  in 
a  false  religion ;  but  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrine 
of  indwelling  sin,  and  by  no  means  refutes  this  doctrine. 

The  declaration  that  depravity,  incident  upon  the  fall  and 
natural  to  us,  makes  us  an  object  of  God's  compassion,  and 
not  of  his  Avrath,  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  Scriptures. 
This  depravity  may  make  us  the  object  of  God's  compassion, 
as  there  can  be  no  compassion,  as  well  as  no  wrath,  where 
there  is  no  sin,  but  it  makes  us  also  an  object  of  God's 
wrath.  The  apostle  tells  us  of  those  who  "were  by  nat- 
ure the  children  of  wrath."  It  is  by  nature,  and  not  by 
practice,  that  they  are  declared  to  be  children  of  wrath. 
They  may,  in  fact,  have  been  children  of  wrath  also  by 
practice,  but  the  wrath  is  declared  to  be  by  nature.  By 
nature,  corrupted  and  depraved,  they  fell  under  the  wrath 
of  God  and  the  curse  of  the  law. 

Instead  of  the  concupiscence  of  the  heart  being  the  prod- 


Or,  tiin  nnd  Salvation.  91 

net  of  vicious  acts  and  evil  habits,  the  vicious  acts  and  evil 
habits  of  life  proceed  from  the  natural  lusts,  evil  desires, 
and  vicious  propensities  of  the  heart.  "Every  man  is 
tempted,  when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lust,  and  en- 
ticed. Then  when  lust  hath  conceived,  it  briugeth  forth 
sin."  "  Out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  murders, 
adulteries,  fornications,  thefts,  false  witness,  blasphemies." 
Wicked  deeds,  such  as  are  mentioned  in  this  last  text,  de- 
file and  condemn  the  man  who  performs  them.  This  can- 
not be  denied  at  all;  but  the  heart  is  wicked  antecedent  to 
these  and  all  other  acts,  and  if  this  were  not  the  case  then 
wickedness  would  not  be  universal;  among  the  millions  in 
the  various  nations  and  generations  of  men  there  would  be 
some  who  would  be  innocent  and  righteous.  If,  as  has  been 
said,  newborn  infants  have  no  character  at  all,  then  they 
would  be  just  as  likely  to  make  good  men  and  women  as 
bad  ones;  and  there  would  surely,  once  in  awhile,  one  be 
found  who  would  be  innocent,  righteous,  and  pious  without 
any  regeneration  and  sanctification  of  the  Spirit. 

There  is  a  real  difference  between  imputed  sin  and  indi- 
vidual acts,  or  sin  committed  in  person.  There  is  as  wide 
a  difference  between  imputed  sin  and  the  individual  acts  of 
responsible  agents  as  between  any  two  things  which  could 
be  mentioned.  Confounding  the  two,  a  thing  often  done, 
leads  to  the  utmost  confusion  and  the  gravest  errors.  Par- 
ties ignoring  this  distinction  give  us  caricature  representa- 
tions of  the  doctrine  of  imputed  guilt.  They  represent  the 
doctrine  of  our  sinning  in  Adam  as  making  us  and  Adam 
one  moral  person,  and  as  making  us  personally  present  and 
personally  consenting  to  and  personally  participating  in 
Adam's  act.  Then,  having  given  this  caricature  representa- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  imputed  sin,  these  parties  will  pro- 
pose to  refute  the  doctrine  by  the  claim  of  an  alibi,  and  by 
the  impossibilities  of  naming  the  sins,  as  we  name  personal 


92  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

transgressions,  which  we  committed  in  Adam.  Adam  and 
his  posterity  do  not  constitute  one  person,  but  they  are  of 
one  race.  His  posterity  were  not  personally  present,  per- 
sonally consenting  to  and  participating  in  his  sinful  act,  but 
as  a  race  he  and  they  are  one,  and  they  were  in  him,  and 
acted  by  him,  he  being  their  head  and  representative.  New- 
born infants  have  never,  in  their  own  proper  persons,  com- 
mitted acts  which  are  sinful.  So  far  as  any  thing  they 
have  done  as  individuals,  they  are  without  sin,  and  are  not 
sinners.  The  boast  of  an  alibi,  and  the  boast  of  having 
done  nothing  which  like  personal  sins  can  be  named,  is 
therefore  a  mere  sophistry,  and  a  useless  subterfuge.  If 
the  apostle  includes  us  in  "all"  and  "many"  when  he  says, 
"By  the  offense  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation,"  and,  "By  one  man's  disobedience  many 
vere  made  sinners,"  then  we  did  sin  in  Adam,  the  boasted 
alibi  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding;  and  Adam's  act  in 
eating  of  the  tree  of  the  kn-owledge  of  good  and  evil  may 
be  named  as  the  sin  charged  against  us,  or  imputed  to  us. 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  individuality,  as  well  as  what 
we  shall  name  communality.  A  man,  constituted  of  a  body 
of  flesh  and  of  a  living  soul,  is  an  actual  and  distinct  per- 
son. Individual  existence  is  the  basis  of  the  existence  of 
the  body  politic.  The  aggregated  existence  of  human  kind 
is  found  alone  in  the  persons  thereof.  The  human  family 
is  constituted  of  distinct  and  actual  persons.  In  connec- 
tion with  this  personality  is  accountability ;  and  Avhere  there 
are  no  persons  there  are  no  responsibilities  whatsoever.  But 
personal  existence  and  personal  accountability  do  not  de- 
stroy the  aggregated  features  of  human  society,  nor  the  fact 
that  God  deals  with  the  human  family  as  a  body.  Com- 
munality is  as  true  as  personality.  There  is  a  community, 
family,  stock,  or  race,  as  certainly  as  there  are  individuals. 
The  word  "man"  applies  to  the  race  as  such,  including 


The  Old  and  the  New  Man :  93 

Adam  and  his  entire  posterity  as  directly  and  as  distinctly  as 
it  applies  to  persons.  The  Bible  refers  as  plainly  to  the  race 
as  an  aggregated  body  of  human  beings  as  it  does  to  any 
one  person.  Its  references  to  the  race  as  a  body  are  as 
manifest  as  are  its  references  to  Abel,  Seth,  Noah,  David, 
Peter,  or  Paul.  God  takes  special  account  of  individuals, 
holds  them  responsible  for  their  deeds,  and  punishes  them 
for  their  transgressions.  Likewise  he  takes  account  of  the 
body  politic,  holds  the  nation  responsible  for  its  conduct, 
and  punishes  the  race  for  its  crimes.  In  proof  of  this  we 
need  only  refer  to  the  history  of  Israel,  Nineveh,  Babylon, 
Egypt,  and  the  rest.  God,  in  his  grace  and  providence, 
provides  for  and  blesses  individuals;  but  in  his  grace  and 
providence  he  also  provides  for  and  blesses  the  race.  In 
proof  of  this  we  give  these  passages:  "Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  "  God 
so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life."  The  text  does  not  say  that  God  so  loved 
Noah,  Job,  and  Daniel,  Peter  and  John,  that  he  gave  his 
Son,  but  he  so  loved  the  world,  and  sent  him  into  the  world 
that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved.  The  atone- 
ment made  by  Jesus  Christ  is  a  provision  made  for  the 
world,  made  for  the  human  family — the  whole  race.  In- 
stead of  this  atonement  being  prescribed  for  and  limited  to 
certain  persons,  it  is  for  the  race,  so  that  Christ  is  really 
the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 

This  doctrine  of  individuality  and  of  communality  lays 
the  foundation  for  the  distinction  of  original  sin  and  of  per- 
sonal sin. 

This  leads  us  to  an  investigation  of  the  eighteenth  chap- 
ter of  Ezekiel.  It  is  asserted  that  the  doctrine  of  imputed 
sin  is  antagonistic  to  the  express  language  of  this  portion 
of  Ezekiel's  prophecy.  There  was  a  proverb  in  the  land 


94  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

of  Israel  which  said:  "The  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes, 
and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge."  The  Lord  God 
took  up  a  dealing  with  Israel  and  said  unto  them,  through 
Ezekiel:  "As  I  live,  ye  shall  not  have  occasion  any  more 
to  use  this  proverb  in  Israel."  And  in  this  connection, 
amongst  many  other  things  of  similar  import,  he  says: 
"The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.  The  son  shall  not  bear 
the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  son;  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall 
be  upon  him,  and  the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be 
upon  him." 

A  patient  investigation  of  this  portion  of  the  word  of 
God  will  amply  repay  the  toil  necessary  to  a  correct  under- 
standing thereof.  It  is  a  most  edifying  portion  of  the  Di- 
vine revelation.  The  mind  of  the  Spirit  is  what  we  wish 
to  know,  and  after  which  we  must  inquire. 

This  passage  cannot  be  in  conflict  with  the  declaration 
made  in  the  Decalogue :  "  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous 
God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children 
unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  me; 
and  showing  mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me, 
and  keep  my  commandments."  Neither  can  it  be  in  con- 
flict with  the  declaration  of  the  apostle:  "By  the  offense 
of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation." 
"By  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners." 
Any  interpretation  which  ignores  these  utterances  of  the 
apostle  and  the  Decalogue  must  be  false.  It  is  most  em- 
phatically set  forth  in  the  word  of  God,  and  most  clearly 
illustrated  in  the  dispensations  of  the  divine  procedure,  that 
God  does  visit  "the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  chil- 
dren, and  upon  the  children's  children,  unto  the  third  and 
to  the  fourth  generation ; "  and  that  he  "  keepeth  covenant 
and  mercy  with  them  that  love  him  and  keep  his  command- 
ments to  a  thousand  generations."  An  illustration  of  his 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  95 

visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  is 
found  in  his  dealing  with  wicked  Ahab.  For  Ahab's  wick- 
edness God  threatened  to  bring  evil  upon  his  posterity. 
Ahab  heard  the  threatening  and  humbled  himself.  For 
this  God  staid  his  judgments  for  the  time,  but  said:  "In 
his  son's  day  will  I  bring  the  evil  upon  his  house."  And 
the  Lord  kept  this  purpose,  and  Jehoram,  Ahab's  son,  fell 
under  this  curse  of  his  father.  (See  1  Kings  xxi.;  2  Kings 
ix.)  How  true  it  is,  "  The  seed  of  evil-doers  shall  never  be 
renowned." 

In  the  interpretation  of  this  chapter  of  Ezekiel  we  should 
not  lose  sight  of  the  points  brought  out  in  it.  We  must 
not  lose  sight  of  the  purport  of  the  proverb,- "  The  fathers 
have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the. children's  teeth  are  set  on 
edge,"  and  what  it  is  which  God  intends  to  rebuke  in  the 
use  made  of  this  proverb.  The  proverb  was  used  by  the 
Israelites  in  that  day  as  an  assertion  of  their  own  personal 
innocence,  and  as  a  denial  of  the  equity  of  God  in  the  in- 
fliction of  punishment  upon  them.  The  purport  of  the 
proverb,  as  they  used  it,  was  that  they  themselves  had  com- 
mitted no  sins,  that  their  fathers  had  sinned,  and  they  were 
suffering  and  were  being  punished  for  their  fathers'  sins. 
They  brought  charges  against  God  and  their  fathers,  and 
cleared  themselves.  God  asserted,  therefore,  in  the  face  of 
their  wicked  and  unjust  charges  against  him,  and  their  un- 
founded justification  of  themselves,  that  his  ways  were  equal 
and  just;  that  he  did  deal  with  them  according  to  the  mer- 
its of  their  own  conduct,  and  that  their  personal  sins  entered 
into  the  account  of  the  crimes  for  which  he  Avas  punishing 
them.  Not  only  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers  deserved  the 
punishments  they  received,  but  their  own  personal  wicked- 
ness merited  all  they  suffered.  He  asserted  that  he  pun- 
ished the  wicked  for  their  own  personal  sins,  and  rewarded 
the  righteous  for  their  own  personal  obedience.  The  great 


00  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


principle  of  personal  desert  and  merit  he  did  not  forget  nor 
violate. 

For  proof  that  this  is  a  correct  view  and  sound  interpre- 
tation of  this  chapter  of  Ezekiel,  we  give  a  passage  from 
the  law  of  God  delivered  to  Israel.  Forewarning  the  peo- 
ple of  the  curses  Avhich  he  would  visit  upon  them  for  their 
disobedience,  and  announcing  the  principles  upon  which  he 
would  deal  with  them,  he  says:  "And  they  that  are  left  of 
you  shall  pine  away  in  their  iniquity  in  your  enemies'  lands; 
and  also  in  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers  shall  they  pine 
away  with  them.  If  they  shall  confess  their  iniquity,  and 
the  iniquity  of  their  fathers,  with  their  trespass  which  they 
trespassed  against  me,  and  that  also  they  have  walked  con- 
trary unto  me;  and  that  I  ^Iso  have  walked  contrary  unto 
them,  and  have  brought  them  into  the  land  of  their  ene- 
mies; if  then  their  uncircu incised  hearts  be  humbled,  and 
they  then  accept  of  the  punishment  of  their  iniquity,  then 
will  I  remember  my  covenant  with  Jacob,  and  also  my  cov- 
enant with  Isaac,  and  also  my  covenant  with  Abraham  will 
I  remember;  and  I  will  remember  the  land."  (Leviticus 
xxvi.  39-42.) 

This  is  a  commentary  upon  the  eighteenth  chapter  of 
Ezekiel. 

A  man  who  does  well  deserves  well,  and  receives  good 
for  so  doing,  his  father's  sins  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing. The  man  who  does  evil  deserves  evil,  and  receives 
ill  for  so  doing,  his  father's  righteousness  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  So  that  it  is  most  true  that  there  is  a 
sense  in  which  the  personal  sins  of  ordinary  parents  are 
not  visited  upon  their  children  who  for  themselves  walk  in 
righteousness,  and  thus  disallow  or  condemn  the  deeds  of 
their  parents.  It  is  also  true  that  God  will  not  damn  in 
eternity  the  soul  of  the  son  for  the  sin  of  the  father,  if  the 
son  does  not  make  the  sins  of  the  father  his  own  bv  walk- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  97 

ing  in  the  same.  But  it  is  moreover  true  that  there  is  a 
sense  in  which  the  children  fall  under  the  malediction  of 
their  fathers'  sins.  In  all  this  there  is  no  contradiction 
and  no  conflict.  The  eighteenth  chapter  of  Ezekiel  is  not 
therefore  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  imputed  sin  or  orig- 
inal guilt. 

The  dispensations  of  God,  with  all  their  variety  and  won- 
ders, have  no  greater  beauty  and  excellence  than  the  puri- 
ty and  harmony  thereof.  The  word  of  God,  abounding 
with  poetry,  prophecy,  miracle,  and  inspiration,  displays 
no  greater  perfection  than  in  the  consistency  of  the  whole 
thereof,  and  the  harmony  of  all  its  parts.  One  part  of  the 
Bible  is  consonant  to  every  other  part. 
7 


98  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 


CHAPTER  VIII, 

THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF 
THE  FIRST  MAN. 

inURTHERMORE,  our  opponents,  in  their  objections 
JLJ  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  charge  that  it  involves 
the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation.  It  is  insisted  that  this 
doctrine  maintains  that  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  lost 
in  hell.  Our  opponents  insist  that  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin  first  originated  with  St.  Augustine,  and  is  a  part  and 
parcel  of  the  theory  known  as  Calvinism.  To  this  we  re- 
spond. 

St.  Augustine  was  not  the  author  of  the  doctrine  of  orig- 
inal sin.  God  first  taught  the  doctrine.  Apostles,  prophets, 
and  patriarchs  were  all  instructed  therein. 

The  doctrines  which  are  peculiarly  and  exclusively  Cal- 
vinistic  we  do  not  believe.  The  five  points  set  forth  by  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  and  maintained  by  that  Synod  against  the 
Remonstrants,  we  do  not  accept  as  true.  That  it  may  be 
seen  that  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  true  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  we  will  set  down  here  these  five  points.  We 
shall  give  these  points  in  our  own  way,  and  in  our  own  lan- 
guage, at  the  same  time  following  in  some  measure  the  lan- 
guage in  which  they  have  been  authoritatively  set  forth: 

1.  God,  by  an  immutable  decree,  made  from  all  eternity, 
elected  to  salvation  a  certain  and  definite  number  of  indi- 
viduals, without  any  regard  to  faith,  obedience,  holiness,  or 
any  other  good  quality  in  them  as  a  cause  or  condition  of 
election;  and  in  his  good  pleasure,  for  the  praise  of  his  glo- 
rious grace,  he  excluded  all  others,  the  larger  number  of 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  99 

mankind,  from  saving  grace,  and  reprobated  them  to  eter- 
nal punishment,  and  that  without  any  regard  to  their  unbe- 
lief and  disobedience. 

2.  Jesus  Christ  did  not  die  and  make  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  all  men,  or  of  the  whole  world,  but  he  suffered  and 
died  for  the  elect  only. 

3.  By  Adam's  fall  his  posterity  lost  their  free-will,  and 
are  now  under  an  unavoidable  necessity  to  do  or  not  to  do 
whatever  they  do  or  do  not,  whether  it  be  good  or  evil,  be- 
ing thereunto  predestinated  by  the  eternal  arid  effectual  se- 
cret decree  of  God. 

4.  God,  to  save  the  elect,  doth,  by  the  application  of  his 
own  irresistible  power,  beget  faith  in  them  insomuch  that 
those  to  whom  he  gives  grace  cannot  reject  the  grace ;  and 
the  rest,  being  reprobate,  cannot  accept  it. 

5.  They  that  have  once  received  this  grace  can  never 
fall  from  it,  finally  or  totally,  and  that  notwithstanding 
they  commit  the  most  enormous  sins. 

These,  with  the  perversions  naturally  growing  out  of 
them,  are  the  points  peculiar  to  the  Calvinistic  theory. 
These  peculiarly  Calvinistic  points  of  doctrine  Ave  could 
consign  to  oblivion  without  in  the  least  affecting  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin.  These  points,  set  forth  and  defended 
by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  may  involve  the  dogma  of  infant 
damnation,  as  it  is  called,  but  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  im- 
puted guilt  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  dogma  or  these 
points.  Original  sin  is  not  the  offspring  of  Calvinistic  ne- 
cessity and  reprobation.  The  theory  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity— -he  being  their  federal  head  and 
legal  representative,  making  them  obnoxious  to  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  or  to  death  as  a  consequence  and  punishment — 
does  not  involve  the  unconditional  damnation  of  infants  or 
adults  in  hell.  Unconditional  damnation  is  rested  by  those 
who  hold  it  upon  either  the  decree  or  foreknowledge  of  God, 


100  The  Qld  and  the  New  Man: 

and  leaves  the  non-elect  out  of  the  provisions  of  the  atone- 
ment. 

If  there  is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin  or  imputed  guilt, 
then  there  is  no  such  thing  as  infant  salvation.  If  infants 
have  no  moral  character,  and  are  not  sinners  by  virtue  of 
Adam's  sin  imputed  to  them,  having  no  sin  through  their 
own  personal  action,  they  are  not  sinners  at  all;  and,  there- 
fore, those  of  them  who  die  in  infancy  cannot  be  saved. 
None  can  be  saved  but  sinners.  Christ  died  only  for  sin- 
ners. We  repeat,  if  infants  who  die  in  infancy  are  not 
sinners  through  Adam's  sin  imputed  to  them,  then  they  are 
not  sinners  at  all,  and  Christ  did  not  die  for  them,  and  does 
not  save  them.  This  is  an  argument  which  has  been 
brought  forth  in  substance  repeatedly,  and  has  never  been 
refuted,  and  never  can  be.  Here  we  rest  our  cause  in  re- 
sponse to  the  hue  and  cry  about  infant  damnation.  Our 
theory  is  the  only  one  upon  which  we  can  predicate  the  sal- 
vation of  infants,  or,  as  for  the  matter  of  that,  the  salvation 
of  adults. 

In  consequence  of  sin  imputed  to  them,  children  are  sin- 
ners, and,  being  sinners,  they  are  under  the  full  penalty  of 
sin ;  and  were  they  left  where  they  are  thus  placed  by  sin, 
they  would  have  to  endure  and  suffer  the  penalty  of  sin 
throughout  eternity.  By  the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ 
made  for  them,  and  through  the  benefits  of  this  atonement 
applied  in  the  forgiveness  of  this  imputed  sin,  and  in  the 
regeneration  of  their  corrupt  and  sinful  natures,  children 
dying  in  infancy  are  relieved  from  sin  and  its  penalty,  and 
are  not  damned  in  hell,  but  are  saved  in  heaven.  Children 
dying  in  infancy  are  not  saved  because  they  have  not  been 
accounted  sinners,  and  have  not  been  under  condemnation, 
and  have  not  been  liable  to  eternal  punishment,  but  they 
are  saved  because  they  have  been  retrieved  from  sin  and  re- 
leased from  condemnation  and  punishment. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  101 

The  charge  alleged  that  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  in- 
volves and  maintains  the  inconsistencies  and  absurdities  in- 
volved in  and  maintained  by  the  doctrines  of  irresistible 
grace,  absolute  necessity,  and  a  partial  and  limited  atone- 
ment, which  are  found  in  the  "five  points''  of  Calvinism, 
is  without  the  slightest  foundation  in  reason  or  truth.  To 
the  expressions  "necessary  holiness,"  "necessary  sin,"  and 
"created  sin,"  expressions  astutely  paraded,  and  often  re- 
peated, by  our  opponents,  no  meaning  whatever  can  be  at- 
tached. They  are  so  utterly  meaningless  that  they  only 
indicate  how  totally  absurd  are  the  dogmas  of  our  oppo- 
nents and  the  miserable  straits  to  which  they  are  reduced 
in  their  endeavors  to  bolster  up  their  sham  conceptions. 
Original  sin  has  nothing  in  the  world  to  do  with  "necessary 
holiness,"  "necessary  sin,"  or  "created  sin,"  whatever  they 
may  be.  No  responsible  Arminian  author  ever  defended 
the  miserable  nonsense  couched  in  these  expressions  so  te- 
diously dwelt  on  by  those  who  fight  against  the  evangelical 
doctrine  of  inherited  depravity.  In  order  to  a  correct  view 
of  the  condition  and  character  of  infants,  and  to  properly 
appreciate  the  subject,  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  correct  view 
and  proper  understanding  of  at  least  one  feature  of  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  and  of  justification  and  of  regener- 
ation. 

The  atonement  is  a  provision  and  satisfaction  made  for 
the  race.  Christ  made  atonement  for  "the  sin  of  the 
world."  As  a  provision  for  the  race,  the  atonement  is  fin- 
ished and  complete.  Justification  is  not  of  universal  nat- 
ure, including  within  its  jurisdiction  the  whole  race,  but  is 
of  the  nature  of  a  special  act  and  work,  of  special  applica- 
tion done  for  one  single  and  separate  individual.  In  like 
manner  regeneration  is  a  work  done  in  the  single  individ- 
ual. Justification  and  regeneration  have  respect  only  to 
the  individual  for  whom '  and  in  whom  they  take  place. 


102  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


The  atonement  made  is  not  justification  and  is  not  regener- 
ation, and  not  every  one  atoned  for  is  justified  and  regen- 
erated. The  atonement  made  does  not  justify  the  individ- 
ual, but  only  makes  it  possible  for  him  to  be  justified.  The 
atonement  having  been  made,  it  is  now  possible  for  God,  as 
the  apostle  states  it,  to  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  the  un- 
godly. Not  until  an  act  takes  place  for  the  individual  as 
an  individual,  justifying  him,  is  he  justified.  The  atone- 
ment— made  and  finished,  as  it  is,  and  standing  as  a  pro- 
vision, as  it  does,  for  the  salvation  of  the  race — may,  never- 
theless, not  eventuate  in  the  salvation  of  every  individual 
thereof.  The  atonement  is  a  provision  and  a  satisfaction 
made  for  all  and  every  one,  and  will  eventuate  in  the  sal- 
vation of  every  person  in  whom  the  work  provided  for  by 
this  atonement  is  accomplished ;  but  certain  things  must  be 
done  for  and  in  the  individual  before  the  atonement,  made 
and  completed,  as  it  is,  can  eventuate  in  the  salvation  of  any 
particular  individual.  This  is  alike  true  in  its  application 
both  to  infants  and  adults.  This  should  not  be  forgotten, 
nor  slightly  considered. 

Children  are  born  into  the  world  upon  the  basis  of  the 
atonement  and  within  reach  of  the  benefits  thereof,  the 
atonement  being  a  universal  provision;  but  as  individuals 
these  children,  when  born,  may  not  yet  have  received  its 
proposed  and  proffered  blessings  of  justification  and  regen- 
eration. Children  are  never,  in  any  case  nor  in  any  event, 
justified  nor  regenerated  before  they  have  an  actual  per- 
sonal existence. 

The  work  of  justification  and  regeneration  takes  place 
in  the  persons  of  infants,  in  which  it  takes  place  at  all,  just 
as  in  the  persons  of  adults,  except  that  in  the  case  of  adults 
repentance  and  faith  are  prerequisites,  and  in  the  case  of 
infants  these  things  are  impossible,  and  are  not  required. 
The  same  Spirit  that  regenerates  the  adult  person  regener- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  103 

iites  the  infant,  and  this  regeneration  is  the  same  work  in 
the  one  case  and  in  the  other.  The  same  God  who  justifies 
the  adult  justifies  the  infant,  and  this  justification  is  the 
same  thing  in  the  one  case  and  in  the  other.  There  is  no 
more  difficulty  or  mystery  accompanying  the  work  of  justi- 
fication and  regeneration  in  the  person  of  an  infant  than 
in  the  person  of  an  adult.  There  is  as  little  foundation 
for  the  belief  that  the  original  sin  of  the  infant  has  been 
blotted  out  before  it  was  born  as  there  is  for  the  belief  that 
the  personal  sins  of  the  adult  were  blotted  out  before  he 
was  born. 

God  has  a  method  founded  on  general  principles  by  which 
he  dispenses  the  blessings  of  salvation.  In  every  case  in 
which  salvation  is  attained  certain  general  principles  are 
recognized  and  conformed  to,  and  in  every  such  case  cer- 
tain necessary  agents  are  engaged  in  the  work.  Certain 
works  and  acts  which  are  requisite  to  salvation  are  per- 
formed in  every  case  and  for  every  individual  who  attains 
salvation.  Upon  the  recognized  basis  of  conferring  justifi- 
cation and  regeneration  upon  the  one  and  upon  the  other, 
God  can,  with  equal  facility,  justify  and  regenerate  the  in- 
fant and  the  adult.  The  infant  is  incapable  of  exercising 
repentance  and  faith,  and  is  equally  incapable  of  resisting 
the  will  of  God  and  of  rejecting  the  atonement  and  grace 
of  Christ;  and  hence  it  is  as  much  within  the  principles 
and  methods  of  the  Divine  government  to  justify  and  re- 
generate the  dying  infant  without  faith  and  repentance  as 
the  adult  with  them. 

Ever  and  anon,  in  boldest  utterance,  it  is  asserted  that 
the  imputation  of  sin  to  newborn  infants  and  the  punish- 
ment of  these  children  for  this  sin  would  be  an  injustice 
shocking  to  the  better  instincts  of  mankind;  and  that  it 
would  be  horrifying  to  think  of  God  subjecting  the  poster- 
ity of  Adam  to  a  liability  to  eternal  death  for  his  one  sin, 


104  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

to  which  they  gave  no  consent,  and  about  which  they  were 
never  consulted.  In  holy  horror  it  is  exclaimed,  "  God  can- 
not be  such  a  monster  as  to  do  a  thing  of  that  kind,  and 
let  not  such  a  charge  be  alleged  against  his  government!" 
All  this  may  appear  plausible  to  many  minds,  and  may  be 
popular  with  superficial  thinkers,  and  may  afford  oppor- 
tunity for  a  display  of  rhetoric  and  a  vain  boast  of  kind- 
heartedness  and  sympathetic  emotions;  but  that  is  all. 
There  is  nothing  solid  or  true  in  any  thing  herein  contained. 
"Far  be  it  from  God,  that  he  should  do  wickedness;  and 
from  the  Almighty,  that  he  should  commit  iniquity."  The 
Almighty  is  "a  God  of  truth,  and  without  iniquity;  just 
and  right  is  he."  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  off- 
spring, and  subjecting  them  to  the  punishment  due  to  this 
sin,  which  punishment  connotes  eternal  death,  in  no  way 
impinges  equity  and  truth,  mercy  and  justice.  Where  can 
be  the  injustice  of  propagating  a  race  under  the  maledic- 
tions of  sin,  under  a  judicial  sentence  for  sin,  when  they 
are  also  propagated  under  the  provisions  of  grace  potent  to 
release  them  from  all  the  evils  to  which  they  are  liable,  and 
bring  them  to  an  estate  as  good  and  as  desirable  as  any  they 
could  have  had  in  the  mere  absence  of  an  impending  pen- 
alty? 

As  Adam  sinned  and  fell,  God  must  either  perpetuate  the 
race  as  a  sinful  and  fallen  race,  or  not  perpetuate  it  at  all. 
It  was  absolutely  impossible  for  sinful  Adam  to  produce 
any  other  than  a  sinful  progeny.  The  divine  law  could 
not  do  otherwise  than  condemn  sin  and  sinners  wherever 
found  or  however  produced.  It  was,  therefore,  for  the  di- 
vine economy  to  devise  a  method  for  saving  sinful  and  con- 
demned children  propagated  as  such  by  Adam,  or  to  cut 
off  the  race  in  and  with  Adam,  and  thereby  prevent  their 
personal  existence.  The  divine  economy  did  the  former, 
and  not  the  latter;  and  so  the  whole  dispensation  is  one  of 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  105 

grace  and  mercy,  and  not  of  cruelty  and  injustice.  It  is  a 
dispensation  which  recognizes  the  existence  of  sin,  and  con- 
demns sin  and  punishes  sin,  and  yet  proposes  to  release  and 
save  from  sin  just  so  far  as  can  be  done  under  the  eternal 
principles  of  the  divine  government  and  through  the  power 
of  a  divine  expedient.  The  scheme  of  redemption  is  a 
divine  expedient.  In  the  divine  scheme  of  human  r% 
demption  is  found  the  equipoise  of  justice  and  goodness, 
than  which  a  profounder  mystery  does  not  exist,  than  which 
a  more  radiant  glory  is  not  seen.  The  warmth  and  strength 
of  love,  the  inflexibility  of  justice,  the  amiability  of  good- 
ness, and  the  equity  of  truth,  all  stand  forth  in  the  scheme 
of  saving  a  sinful,  fallen,  and  condemned  race. 

There  is  an  incapacity  of  will,  and  there  is  an  inability 
for  responsible  action  peculiar  to  infants,  idiots,  and  luna- 
tics. The  existence  and  effects  of  sin  and  the  provisions  of 
grace  meet  in  these  in  recognition  of  the  absence  of  account- 
ability. It  is  impossible  for  newborn  infants  and  very 
young  children  to  exercise  will  upon  the  basis  of  account- 
ability, because  they  have  not  a  development  and  strength 
of  the  mental  and  moral  faculties  sufficient  for  accountable 
choice  and  action.  The  same  is  true  of  idiots,  however  ad- 
vanced in  years  they  may  be.  More  than  the  bare  exist- 
ence of  will  is  essential  to  responsible  choice  and  action. 
Reason  and  a  capacity  for  a  knowledge  or  perception  of 
right  and  wrong  are  essential  thereto,  with  whatever  else  is 
necessary  to  a  decision  of  the  mind  and  the  action  of  the 
soul.  Aside  from  the  inability  of  will  and  the  incapacity 
for  responsible  action,  here  already  named,  there  is  a  pros- 
tration of  the  will  and  an  inherent  bondage  to  sin  which 
incapacitate  for  choosing  and  doing  right.  The  will,  by 
the  fall,  has  lost  its  freedom  insomuch  that  it  is  inclined 
only  to  evil,  and  is  averse  to  all  good.  The  human  soul,  in 
its  fallen  state,  is  under  bondage  to  inherent  evil,  and  while 


106  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

it  can  choose  evil  and  do  wrong,  it  can  never  choose  good 
or  do  right  unaided  by  grace.  The  statement  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  that  "by  Adam's  fall  his  posterity  lost  their  free- 
will," is  most  surely  true,  though  the  other  statement  con- 
nected with  it,  that  they  "are  now  under  an  unavoidable 
necessity  to  do  or  not  to  do  whatever  they  do  or  do  not, 
Whether  it  be  good  or  evil,"  is  most  surely  unscriptural 
and  false.  The  logic  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  is  defective. 
The  will  may  be  in  bondage  to  sin,  and  wholly  inclined  to 
evil  naturally,  and  yet  not  under  necessity  to  do  whatever 
it  does.  Grace  may  and  does  put  the  soul  on  a  basis  of 
freedom,  or  at  least  on  a  basis  whence  it  is  attainable.  But 
naturally  the  will  is  enfeebled,  and  is  incompetent  to  choose 
good,  and  is  uninclined  to  do  so.  In  the  language  of  our 
Article  of  Religion:  "The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall 
of  Adam  is  such  that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself, 
by  his  own  natural  strength  and  works,  to  faith,  and  calling 
upon  God ;  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  good  works, 
pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God 
by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a  good  will,  and 
working  with  us,  when  we  have  that  good  will." 

Those  who  disallow  the  disability  of  the  human  will,  and 
its  disinclination  to  good,  assert  that  if  men  are  disabled  in 
their  wills,  and  ai-e  opposed  to  all  good,  and  are  wholly  in- 
clined to  evil,  then  they  are  incapable  of  performing  duty 
and  of  regulating  their  actions  by  a  law  commanding  good 
and  prohibiting  evil,  and  they  are  not  moral  agents. 

Though  what  is  here  asserted  is  quite  plausible,  and  is  in  a 
measure  correct,  we  cannot  accept  it  in  the  form  it  is  put  as 
the  truth  in  the  case.  The  Ethiopian  cannot  change  his  skin, 
nor  the  leopard  his  spots ;  no  more  can  a  man  change  his 
evil  nature.  Men  are  wholly  unable  to  pardon  their  guilt 
and  to  wash  out  their  innate  depravity.  Without  extrane- 
ous aid  men  never  c.  ..  break  the  bondage  of  sin  in  which 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  107 

they  are  held,  or  escape  the  corruption  which  is  in  them. 
Men  with  unregenerated  and  wicked  hearts,  are  incapable 
of  regulating  their  lives  by  the  law  of  God.  But  the  grace 
of  God,  as  a  prevenient  endowment,  has  been  given  to  all 
men,  and  this  prevenient  grace  assists  the  will,  and  every 
man  is  therefore  and  thereupon  a  moral  agent,  and  is  capa- 
ble of  willing  that  which  is  right  and  choosing  that  which 
is  good.  But,  as  the  apostle  teaches  in  the  seventh  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  there  is  a  law  in  the  mem- 
bers of  the  natural  and  unregenerate  man,  even  when  his 
mind  is  enlightened  and  convicted,  which  brings  him  into 
captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  his  members. 

There  is  in  every  one  born  into  the  world  a  depraved 
and  sinful  nature,  and  this  accounts  for  the  universality  of 
sin.  Were  the  race  not  inclined  to  sin  and  in  love  with  it, 
and  were  the  race  naturally  free  from  sin,  then  the  individ- 
uals thereof  would  be,  to  say  the  least,  just  as  apt  to  go 
right  as  to  go  wrong,  and  under  favorable  circumstances 
would  go  in  the  right  way  and  do  the  right  thing.  There 
is  a  beauty  and  there  is  a  loveliness  in  virtue  and  righteous- 
ness which  would  attract  and  allure  some  of  the  individuals 
of  our  numerous  race  if  they  were  naturally  free  to  go  in 
the  way  of  virtue  and  righteousness.  It  is  per  se  more 
pleasant  to  love  than  to  hate,  to  speak  the  truth  than  to 
speak  falsehood,  to  be  honest  than  to  be  dishonest,  to  be  be- 
nevolent than  to  be  penurious.  Sin  is  hideous  in  itself,  and 
the  way  thereof  destructive.  Therefore  if  men  did  not  by 
an  evil  nature  love  sin,  and  were  they  not  in  bondage  to 
sin,  they  would  not  all  follow  and  commit  sin. 

But  it  is  said  that  indwelling  sin  is  not  essential  to  ac- 
count for  the  transgressions  of  men;  "that  a  virtuous  act 
does  not  require  an  antecedent  virtuous  disposition  or  prin- 
ciple to  account  for  its  existence,  nor  does  a  vicious  act  re- 
quire an  antecedent  vicious  principle  to  account  for  its  ex- 


108  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

istence;"  that  otherwise  Adam  must  have  had  a  sinful 
nature  before  he  sinned.  Dr.  Taylor  embodies  the  position 
in  the  following  utterances :  "  If  you  say  that  lust  proceeds 
from  original  sin,  I  ask,  Whence  then  proceeded  the  lust  of 
our  first  parents?  .  .  .  Adam's  nature,  it  is  allowed, 
was  very  far  from  being  sinful,  and  yet  he  sinned.  And 
therefore  the  common  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  no  more 
necessary  to  account  for  the  sin  that  hath  been,  or  is  in  the 
world,  than  it  is  to  account  for  Adam's  sin.  His  sin  was 
not  from  a  depraved  nature,  but  from  his  own  disobedient 
will;  and  so  must  every  man's  sin,  and  all  the  sin  in  the 
world,  how  much  soever,  be,  as  well  as  his."  (Pages  129, 
243,  244.) 

We  concede  at  once  that  a  virtuous  act  does  not  necessa- 
rily require  an  antecedent  virtuous  disposition  or  principle 
to  account  for  its  existence,  and  that  a  vicious  act  does  not 
necessarily  require  an  antecedent  vicious  principle  to  ac- 
count for  its  existence.  We  concede  at  once  that  Adam's 
first  sin  did  not  proceed  from  a  depraved  nature,  and  that 
Adam  was  not  sinful,  but  that  he  was  holy  before  he  sinned. 
We  not  only  concede  this  last,  but  insist  on  its  truth.  But 
then  virtuous  acts  proceed  from  virtuous  dispositions,  or 
principles,  and  vicious  acts  from  vicious  dispositions.  Acts 
partake  of  the  character  of  the  dispositions  or  principles 
from  which  they  proceed.  They  are  constituted  right  or 
wrong  by  the  nature  of  the  principles  from  which  they 
flow,  as  well  as  by  what  they  are  in  themselves.  An  act 
which  violates  the  law  of  God,  and  consequently  is  vicious 
in  itself,  is  vicious  whether  it  proceeds  from  an  antecedently 
virtuous  disposition  or  from  an  antecedently  vicious  dispo- 
sition. So  the  act  of  Adam  in  eating  the  prohibited  fruit 
was  vicious,  though  previously  his  disposition  was  virtuous. 
An  act,  virtuous  in  itself,  is  vicious  when  it  proceeds  from 
a  vicious  principle  and  purpose.  The  act  of  praying  is  in 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  109 

itself  a  good  act;  but  a  man  moved  by  a  vicious  disposi- 
tion and  actuated  by  an  unholy  purpose  prays  to  God,  and 
the  act  is  vicious  and  wicked  because  it  proceeds  from  and 
is  prompted  by  this  vicious  disposition  and  purpose.  A 
man  gives  an  alms  to  the  poor,  which  is  an  act  right  in  it- 
self; but  the  gratification  of  pride  and  the  attainment  of 
worldly  advantage  move  him  to  the  act,  and  it  is  therefore 
vicious.  A  virtuous  heart  acts  virtuously,  and  a  vicious 
heart  acts  viciously.  Every  one  acts  in  accordance  with 
his  nature  and  the  principles  within  him.  This,  it  appears 
to  us,  needs  no  argument  for  its  establishing,  and  lies 
at  the  very  basis  of  all  philosophy  and  the  nature  of  all 
things.  "A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the 
heart  bringeth  forth  good  things;  and  an  evil  man  out 
of  the  evil  treasure  bringeth  forth  evil  things;  for  out  of 
the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh."  The 
nature  and  principles  of  the  man  produce  his  acts,  and 
give  to  them  their  character.  It  is  morally  impossible  for 
a  man  who  has  the  nature  of  Satan  in  him  to  do  right.  It 
is  morally  impossible,  though  not  absolutely  so,  for  a  man 
who  has  the  nature  of  God  imparted  to  him,  to  sin.  "  Who- 
soever is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin ;  for  his  seed  re- 
maineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of 
God."  It  is  true  that  one  may  act  contrary  to  his  nature, 
or  original  principles,  as  did  Adam,  and  as  did  the  angels 
fallen  before  him;  but  what  we  insist  on,  and  what  the 
above  texts  teach,  is  that  the  actions  of  the  individual  con- 
form to  his  principles  and  flow  from  them.  This  is  a  law 
well  established,  and  so  the  innate  depravity  of  the  human 
heart  accounts  for  the  universality  of  sin,  and  is  the  source 
and  cause  of  universal  wickedness.  Adam,  as  a  man  on 
trial,  under  the  pressure  of  temptation,  sinned  once  without 
any  innate  depravity  to  induce  him.  This  was  only  one 
case  of  one  man.  Were  the  millions  of  our  race  without 


110  Tlie  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

indwelling  sin,  and  as  free  to  do  right  as  to  do  wrong,  some 
of  the  vast  multitudes  would  do  right  and  not  do  wrong. 
While  we  can  see  how  one  man  might  fail  to  do  right  un- 
der such  circumstances,  we  cannot  see  why  and  how  ><> 
many  and  every  one  should  fail  under  such  conditions. 
Men  renewed  by  the  grace  of  God  and  by  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  do  right ;  why  do  they  fail  to  do  right  by  nat- 
ure without  being  renewed,  if  by  nature  they  are  free  to  do 
good?  Our  opponents  cannot  meet  this  point  otherwise 
than  by  a  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  grace  and  the  renew- 
ing work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  their  position  that 
men  do  right  not  by  grace,  but  by  nature,  and  by  extrane- 
ous influences  about  them,  such  as  the  example  of  others. 
But  on  this  hypothesis  the  scripture  above  given — "Who- 
soever is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin ;  for  his  seed  re- 
maineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin  because  he  is  born  of 
God  " — is  utterly  without  meaning.  No  one  should  be  so 
silly  as  to  say  that  "born  of  God"  means  an  "act  of  the 
will,"  and  God's  "seed"  which  remaineth  in  him  who  is 
born  of  God  is  nothing  else  than  "the  habit  formed  by  a 
repetition  of  the  acts  of  the  will;"  and  yet  this  is  the  only 
refuge  for  our  opponents  from  the  force  of  the  plain  teach- 
ings of  the  text. 

There  are  two  passages  of  Scripture  relied  on  by  our  op- 
ponents which  must  be  considered  at  this  juncture.  One 
is  found  in  Matthew  xviii.  3,  and  the  other  in  Mark  x. 
13-15.  The  first  is  as  follows :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Ex- 
cept ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  It  is  confidently 
asserted  that  this  text  teaches  that  children  are  not  nat- 
urally sinful;  that  it  vindicates  the  assumption  that  new- 
born infants  are  without  guilt,  disease,  or  moral  corruption ; 
that  they  need  nothing  done  in  them  or  for  them,  after 
natural  birth,  to  prepare  them  for  an  inheritance  in  heaven 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  Ill 

and  admittance  there.  But  we  feel  sure  that  Christ  had 
no  thought  of  teaching  in  this  text  that  newborn  infants 
are  actually  regenerated  and  justified,  or  that  they  are  nat- 
urally good.  He  is  teaching  the  necessity  of  humility  and 
freedom  from  worldly  ambition.  The  little  child  is  with- 
out worldly  ambition,  and  is  an  example  of  humility. 

Clement,  in  his  "  Instructor,"  quotes  this  passage  of  Script- 
ure, and  says  that  the  Lord  was  "  not  in  that  place  speak- 
ing figuratively  of  regeneration,  but  setting  before  us,  for 
our  imitation,  the  simplicity  that  is  in  children." 

Among  other  things  which  Mr.  Richard  Watson  writes 
in  his  exposition  on  this  passage,  he  says :  "  Copious  paral- 
lels have  been  sometimes  formed  between  the  character  of 
little  children  and  true  disciples,  and  as  usual  in  such  cases 
a  fertile  invention  has  pushed  interpreters  beyond  the  war- 
rant of  the  text.  Our  Lord  himself  explains  his  own  mean- 
ing in  the  next  verse:  '  Whosoever  therefore  shall  HUMBLE 
himself  as  this  little  child.'  In  what,  then,  does  the  hu- 
mility of  a  little  child  consist  but  in  freedom  from  ambi- 
tion and  the  desire  of  wealth  and  honors?  The  strifes  of 
men  for  objects  of  this  kind  pass  unheeded  by  the  child, 
and  kindle  in  his  bosom  no  corresponding  feelings;  he  is 
dead  to  them.  This,  in  a  child,  arises  not  from  moral  prin- 
ciple, but  from  immature  capacity." 

Mr.  Fletcher,  in  his  "  Dialogue  Between  a  Minister  and 
One  of  his  Parishioners,"  says :  "  This  passage  refers  no  more 
to  the  natural  state  of  children  than  that  where  Christ 
says,  'I  will  come  as  a  thief,'  refers  to  the  dishonesty  of  a 
thief.  If  our  Lord  affirms  that  we  must  become  as  little 
children,  it  is  not  in  natural  sinfulness  and  foolishness,  but 
in  'desiring  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  as  newborn  babes 
desire  the  breast'  (1  Peter  ii.  11);  in  being  conscious  ofj 
our  ignorance  and  helplessness ;  in  submitting  to  the  teach- 
ing of  our  Heavenly  Master  without  unbelieving  reason- 


1 1 2  Tie  Old  and  the  Aew  Man  : 


ings;  and  in  gladly  beginning  the  spiritual  life,  as  children 
beginning  the  natural  one."  See  "  Fletcher's  Works,"  Vol. 
IV.,  p.  419. 

The  other  passage  reads:  "They  brought  young  children 
to  him,  that  he  should  touch  them;  and  his  disciples  re- 
buked those  that  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it, 
he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them,  Suffer  the  lit- 
tle children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not;  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Who- 
soever shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little 
child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  them  up  in 
his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them." 

That  children  are  subjects  of  redeeming  grace,  and  ob- 
jects of  God's  watchful  care  and  tender  mercy,  cannot  be 
questioned  for  a  moment,  for  the  Scriptures  clearly  avouch 
this  truth.  That  they  are  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ, 
and  are  entitled  to  the  covenant  blessings  and  covenant- 
making  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  admits  of  no  doubt.  The 
Scriptures  are  sufficiently  explicit  on  these  points.  In  ev- 
ery special  covenant  which  God  has  ever  made  with  men 
he  included  the  children  of  the  parties  to  the  covenant. 
In  his  covenant  with  Adam  in  the  garden,  when  the  tree  of 
the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  was  the  covenant  ordinance, 
God  included  the  seed  of  Adam.  In  his  covenant  made 
and  established  with  Noah,  the  bow  in  the  clouds  being  the 
sign  of  the  covenant,  God  said :  "  I,  behold,  I  establish  my 
covenant  with  you,  and  with  your  seed  after  you."  In  his 
covenant  with  Abraham,  in  which  circumcision  was  or- 
dained as  the  sign  and  seal,  the  language  of  God  was:  "I 
will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy 
seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  cov- 
enant, to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee. 
.  .  .  This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep,  between 
me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee;  every  man-child 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  113 

among  you  shall  be  -circumcised."  When  Christ,  in  the 
fullness  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  came  to  establish  a  cov- 
enant with  the  nations,  of  which  covenant  he  ordained  bap- 
tism as  the  sign  and  seal,  he  said :  "  Suffer  little  children, 
and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me ;  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  And  the  apostles,  recognizing  the 
fact  that  the  children  are  embraced  in  the  gospel  covenant, 
and  are  entitled  to  the  covenant  ordinances  of  the  same, 
preached  that  "  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  chil- 
dren." This  passage  here  under  review  has  been  appealed 
to  from  the  apostolic  time  as  authority  for  infant  baptism, 
and  very  properly  so,  though  Christ  did  not  baptize  these 
infants  which  were  brought  to  him.  But  then  the  passage 
in  no  way  teaches  that  newborn  infants  are  naturally  good, 
and  have  no  need  of  regeneration  and  of  justification.  Its 
meaning  and  significance  are  just  the  other  way.  It  teaches 
that  they  are  subjects  of  redeeming  grace,  and  therefore  in 
need  of  all  the  effects  and  benefits  of  that  grace.  They 
need  regeneration  and  justification.  In  the  "Dialogue  Be- 
tween a  Minister  and  One  of  his  Parishioners,"  the  parish- 
ioner quotes  a  part  of  this  text  to  prove  that  children  are 
not  naturally  depraved,  and  Mr.  Fletcher  replies:  "The 
portion  of  Scripture  you  quote  establishes  what  you  want 
to  overthrow ;  for  if  infants  must  come  to  Christ,  it  follows 
they  are  lost  sinners  through  the  depravity  of  their  nature, 
though  not  yet  doubly  lost  through  the  corruption  of  their 
lives;  otherwise  they  would  not  stand  in  need  of  being 
brought  to  the  Physician  of  souls,  who  'came  to  seek  and 
to  save  [only]  that  which  was  lost.'  And  if  our  Lord 
added, '  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven' — i.  e.,  the  dispen- 
sation of  the  gospel  and  the  Church  of  Christ — it  was  to  show 
that  infants  are  in  as  great  want  of  the  gospel,  of  the  advan- 
tages of  Church-fellowship,  and  as  welcome  to  them,  as  per- 
sons of  riper  years."  ("  Fletcher's  Works,"  Vol.  IV.,  p.  419.) 
8 


1 14  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

Do  the  innocent  ever  suffer?  Are  the  innocent  ever  pun- 
ished under  the  divine  administration?  Are  all  sufferings 
inflicted  as  a  penalty  or  as  a  punishment  for  sin?  Do  in- 
fants suffer  without  any  reference  to  a  moral  law?  It  is 
said  by  those  who  endeavor  to  refute  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin  that  the  innocent  suffer;  that  there  is  suffering  under 
the  divine  administration  which  is  not  a  punishment  for 
sin,  and  that  infants  suffer  without  any  reference  to  a  moral 
law.  In  this  connection  they  assert  that  afflictions,  calam- 
ities, and  death  are  means  of  producing  and  improving 
virtue,  and  that  it  is  a  principle  of  the  divine  government 
to  impose  natural  evil  or  suffering  as  a  means  of  promoting 
moral  good. 

It  is  quite  difficult  to  avoid  confusion  when  so  many 
points  are  combined  as  in  the  above  questions,  but  with 
proper  attention  the  truth  may  be  arrived  at  without  any 
uncertainty  or  obscurity. 

Where  there  is  no  moral  law  there  is  no  transgressor. 
Where  there  are  no  moral  law  and  no  transgressor,  there  is 
no  sin.  Where  there  are  no  moral  law  and  no  transgressor 
and  no  sin,  there  is  no  guilt.  Where  there  are  no  moral 
law  and  no  transgressor  and  no  sin  and  no  guilt,  there  is  no 
punishment.  Where  there  are  no  moral  law  and  no  trans- 
gressor and  no  sin  and  no  guilt  and  no  punishment,  there  is 
no  suffering,  never  was,  never  will  be,  and  never  can  be. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  the  Lord,  in  many  instances  where 
he  visits  judgments  and  calamities,  to  correct  and  reform 
the  parties  upon  whom  they  are  visited,  but  judgments  and 
calamities  are  never  visited  upon  any  in  the  absence  of  sin 
already  existing,  and  therefore,  however  the  visitation  of 
these  may  design  correction  and  reformation  and  the  pro- 
duction of  positive  virtue,  these  calamities  and  afflictions 
are  in  every  case  visited  as  a  punishment,  and  a  righteous 
visitation  upon  sin.  The  very  declaration  which  is  made 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  115 

iu  the  matter,  "to  correct  and  reform  the  parties  upon  whom 
they  are  visited,"  expresses  the  fact  of  sin  existing.  Were 
there  no  sin  in  the  case,  there  would  be  no  occasion  to  cor- 
rect and  reform. 

How  could  an  infant,  or  any  one  else,  suffer  in  order  to 
produce  virtue  and  promote  moral  good,  and  at  the  same 
time  suffer  without  any  reference  to  the  moral  law?  Such 
a  thing  is  impossible.  Is  there  such  a  thing  as  virtue  or 
moral  good  independent  of  moral  law?  Nay,  verily. 

Suffering  and  punishment,  if  not  identical,  are  insepara- 
ble. It  is  impossible  to  think  of  suffering  without  thinking 
of  punishment;  and  in  the  absence  of  sin,  there  never  was 
and  there  never  can  be  suffering.  God  in  his  justice  never 
can  visit  afflictions  and  chastisements  upon  the  beings  of  a 
realm  where  there  is  no  sin.  To  account  one  innocent  does 
him  no  good  if  he  is  still  held  under  suffering.  Mercy  and 
pity  can  have  no  existence  in  a  world  of  perfect  innocence; 
no  more  can  the  mode  of  producing  virtue  by  the  visitation 
of  afflictions  and  the  imposition  of  sufferings.  God  could 
as  soon  exercise  mercy  toward  an  innocent  being  as  visit 
afflictions  and  sufferings  upon  him. 

Christians  suffer  in  this  life.  There  is  no  denying  this. 
"  Many  are  the  afflictions  of  the  righteous."  "  In  the  world 
ye  shall  have  tribulation."  "Whom  the  Lord  loveth  he 
chasteneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth." 
Christians  have  tribulation  in  the  world  because  the  world 
hates  and  persecutes,  condemns  and  kills  them.  Christians 
endure  scourging  because  God  chastises  them.  But  even 
Christians  are  under  a  dispensation  in  this  life  which  pun- 
ishes sin.  It  is  a  scriptural  truth  that  "to  punish  the  just 
is  not  good."  It  is  also  said  of  the  Lord :  "  He  doth  not 
afflict  willingly,  nor  grieve  the  children  of  men."  He 
must  have  a  cause  and  a  provocation  for  doing  so  if  he  does 
not  do  it  from  his  heart ;  and  that  cause  and  provocation  is 


The  Old  ami  the  New  Man : 


nothing  else  than  sin.  Wherefore  a  living  man  has  no  just 
ground  of  complaint  and  murmuring  in  his  afflictions,  for 
his  afflictions  are,  as  they  come  from  God,  a  visitation  or 
punishment  for  his  sins.  "Though  affliction  cometh  not 
forth  of  the  dust,  neither  doth  trouble  spring  out  of  the 
ground;  yet  man  is  born  unto  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  up- 
ward." Iniquity,  affliction,  and  trouble  are  inseparable. 
Afflictions  and  trouble  come  not  forth  out  of  the  ground, 
and  yet  they  fall  upon  man  as  man,  and  attend  all  men  in 
general,  because  men  are  born  to  them  as  they  are  born  in 
sin.  Many  are  the  afflictions  of  the  righteous,  but  they 
come  of  sin  either  directly  or  indirectly. 

To  the  exposition  of  a  few  passages  of  Scripture,  which 
we  here  group  together,  we  shall  devote  a  short  space: 
"Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that 
the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we 
should  not  serve  sin."  (Romans  vi.  6.)  "That  ye  put  off 
concerning  the  former  conversation  the  old  man,  Avhich  is 
corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts ;  and  be  renewed  in 
the  spirit  of  your  mind ;  and  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man, 
which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holi- 
ness." (Ephesians  iv.  22.)  "Lie  not  one  to  another,  see- 
ing ye  have  put  off  the  old  man  with  his  deeds;  and  have 
put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after 
the  image  of  him  that  created  him."  (Colossians  iii.  9, 10.) 
"So  then  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God." 
(Romans  viii.  8.)  "  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  for  they  are  foolishness  unto 
him;  neither  can  he  know7  them,  because  they  are  spirit- 
ually discerned."  (1  Corinthians  ii.  14.) 

These  portions  of  Scripture  stand  at  the  very  basis  of 
the  mission  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  nature  and 
purpose  of  the  whole  system  of  Christ  depend  upon  the 
interpretation  given  of  these  passages.  It  is  remarkable  to 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  117 

what  lengths  men  have  gone  in  an  exegesis  of  these  texts 
in  order  to  evade  their  true  intent  and  meaning.  We  have 
seen  a  published  exposition  of  Romans  viii.  8  and  1  Co- 
rinthians ii.  14,  in  which  it  is  said  that  the  proposition  con- 
tained in  the  language,  "the  natural  man,"  and  "they  that 
are  in  the  flesh,"  "is  not  a  proposition  as  between  two  classes 
in  society,  but  it  is  a  proposition  that  has  respect  to  the 
double  nature  that  is  within  all  men."  It  is  further  said 
by  the  same  published  exposition  that  by  "the  natural 
man"  and  "the  flesh"  is  meant  "the  bodily  organization 
in  which  reside  the  appetites  and  passions,"  and  that  by 
"the  spiritual  man"  is  meant  "the  thinking  and  emotive 
man." 

From  all  this  we  are  compelled  to  dissent.  Human  lan- 
guage could  not  be  put  together  so  as  to  more  clearly  and 
concisely  convey  the  idea  of  a  class  of  men  in  society  than 
is  done  by  the  term  "they  that  are  in  the  flesh,"  and  by 
the  term  "the  natural  man."  The  distinction  drawn  by 
each  of  these  terms  is  clearly  of  some  men  from  others. 
The  idea  of  two  natures  in  the  same  man  is  in  neither  of 
the  phrases,  and  can  never  be  put  in  either  of  them.  "  They 
that  are  in  the  flesh"  suggests  others  who  are  not  in  the 
flesh,  and  "the  natural  man"  suggests  that  which  is  not 
natural.  The  idea  is  nowhere  presented  in  the  Scriptures 
that  "the  natural  man"  and  "the  spiritual  man"  pertain 
to  and  constitute  distinct  parts  of  the  same  individual  pos- 
sessed at  the  same  time;  but  the  idea  is  that  one  of  these, 
wherever  the  man  has  been  both,  succeeds  and  supersedes 
the  other. 

Dr.  Taylor  says  that  the  term  "they  that  are  in  the  flesh" 
means  just  the  same  as  "to  mind  [to  choose,  to  follow]  the 
things  [the  gratifications]  of  the  flesh,"  and  may  be  truly 
paraphrased,  "The  minding,  choosing,  and  following  fleshly 
gratifications."  In  his  note  on  "  The  natural  man  receiveth 


118  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God"  (1  Corinthians  ii.  14), 
he  says:  "The  animal  man,  the  man  who  liveth  the  animal 
life,  who  maketh  the  sense  and  appetite  the  law  of  his  ac- 
tions, receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God."  (See 
':  Original  Sin,"  pp.  122, 123.)  He  makes  "  to  be"  the  same 
as  choosing  and  acting,  and  "to  be  in  the  flesh"  the  same 
as  choosing  and  acting  according  to  the  flesh.  It  is  more 
than  incredible  that  a  man  of  Dr.  Taylor's  scholastic  at- 
tainments could  be  so  biased  by  his  creed,  or  by  any  thing 
else,  as  to  teach  that  "to  be"  and  "to  act"  are  one  and  the 
same  thing.  It  is  quite  evident  that  "to  be"  is  not  the 
same  with  choosing  and  acting.  We  say, "  This  stone  is." 
According  to  Taylor's  paraphrase  this  is  the  same  as  to  say, 
"  This  stone  chooses  and  acts."  Who  does  not  see  that  there 
is  a  difference  in  a  stone  existing  in  its  essence  and  a  stone 
acting?  To  "mind  the  things  of  the  flesh"  conveys  to  us 
the  idea  of  choosing  and  acting,  but  "  to  be  in  the  flesh " 
conveys  to  us  the  idea  of  state  or  condition,  and  not  of  action. 
In  expounding  the  passages  in  Ephesians  and  Colossians 
which  refer  to  and  name  the  old  man  and  the  new  man, 
Dr.  Taylor  says  we  learn  from  them  "that  the  'old  man' 
has  reference  to  the  life  these  Christians  had  lived  while 
they  were  heathens.  As  the  'old  man'  has  reference  to  a 
heathenish  life,  or  conversation,  so  the  '  new  man '  has  refer- 
ence to  the  life  of  truth,  righteousness,  and  holiness  which 
they  were  taught,"  etc.  (See  "  Original  Sin,"  pp.  180, 181 .) 
In  his  supplement  to  this  work  he  says :  "  God  created  the 
'new  man'  when  he  created  the  gospel  dispensation.  .  .  . 
From  all  this,  I  apprehend,  we  may  gather  that  the  'old 
man '  relates  to  the  Gentile  state,  and  that  the  '  new  man ' 
is  either  the  Christian  state  or  the  Christian  Church,  body, 
or  society."  (Pages  154,  155.)  He  therefore  denies  that 
the  "new  man"  is  any  thing  like  a  new  nature  given  to 
the  individual, -or  that  it  is  "personal  internal  holiness," 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  110 

and  also  denies  that  the  "old  man"  is  a  corrupt  personal 
internal  nature. 

When  Dr.  Taylor  reaches  a  passage  of  Scripture  which 
has  a  general  allusion,  he  interprets  it  as  of  personal  mean- 
ing; when  he  finds  one  which  alludes  to  the  individual,  he 
insists  that  its  references  are  national  and  dispensational. 
By  means  of 'this  shifting  and  distorting  he  keeps  always 
to  his  creed  and  athwart  the  Scriptures.  He  often  contra- 
dicts himself  and  perverts  the  word  of  God,  but  never  an- 
tagonizes his  Arianism. 

Perhaps  no  portion  of  God's  word  more  specifically  and 
exclusively  refers  to  the  personal  state  and  internal  princi- 
ples and  nature  of  the  man  as  he  is  by  natural  birth,  and 
as  he  is  by  spiritual  birth,  than  do  the  terms  in  these  texts, 
the  "old  man"  and  the  "new  man."  To  tell  us  that  they 
allude  to  a  Gentile  state,  a  dispensation,  or  the  body  politic, 
is  simply  to  mock  us  with  words,  and  to  seek  to  blind  us 
with  an  hypothesis.  Such  is  no  better  than  a  vision  of  the 
night,  the  vagaries  of  a  flitting  dream. 

There  is  in  this  phrase,  the  "old  man,"  something  more 
than  the  mere  adumbrations  of  truth  or  the  mere  scintilla- 
tions of  light.  It  has  something  as  a  basis  on  which  to 
rest — something  wrhich  called  it  into  existence,  and  of  which 
it  is  characteristic.  It  is  not  the  mere  phraseology  of  a  sys- 
tem based  upon  an  abstraction.  It  is  a  phrase  of  the  in- 
spired author  which  was  adopted  by  him  of  purpose  and 
not  under  the  influence  of  fortuitous  incidents.  It  is  a 
phrase  of  deep  and  stable  significance,  and  should  be  re- 
tained and  held  as  of  divine  authority,  and  guarded  in  its 
true  intent  and  significance,  if  we  would  have  the  roots  of 
error  dried  up  beneath  and  the  branches  thereof  cut  off 
above.  The  old  man  is  the  body  of  corruption  belonging 
to  us.  The  work  of  grace  does  not  in  its  directness  destroy 
the  life,  but  the  old  nature.  The  old  course  of  life  is,  upon 


120  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

conversion,  abandoned,  but  it  is  an  after  effect  growing  out 
of  the  work  of  grace  in  the  destruction  of  the  old  man,  or 
corrupt  nature. 

"  Ye  have  put  off  the  old  man  with  his  deeds."  Here  the 
old  man  and  his  deeds  are  named  and  clearly  distinguished 
from  each  other.  The  apostle  would  not  have  been  guilty 
of  such  tautology  as  naming  the  two  in  the  same  sentence 
had  he  intended  by  them  one  and  the  same  thing.  Here 
the  old  man's  deeds  are  mentioned  as  his,  but  distinct  from 
himself.  His  deeds  are  the  acts  of  his  life,  but  they  are  not 
the  same  with  himself.  Had  the  apostle  meant  by  the  old 
man  the  action  or  conduct  of  the  life,  it  is  quite  manifest 
that  he  would  not  have  named  in  the  same  sentence  with 
the  old  man  his  deeds. 

"Ye  have  put  off  the  old  man,  and  have  put  on  the  new 
man."  The  old  man  is  before  the  new  man,  and  the  new 
man  is  after  the  old  man.  The  old  man  is  without  the  new 
man,  and  the  new  man  is  without  the  old  man.  The  old 
man  is  opposed  to  the  new  man,  and  the  new  man  is  op- 
posed to  the  old  man.  When  the  old  man  is  put  off,  the 
new  man  is  put  on.  The  old  man  is  bad,  the  new  man  is 
good.  The  old  man  is  condemned,  the  new  man  is  ap- 
proved. The  old  man  is  natural,  the  new  man  is  super- 
natural. The  old  man  is  by  natural  birth,  the  new  man  is 
by  regeneration.  The  old  man  is  that  which  is  received 
in  birth  from  natural  parents,  the  new  man  is  that  which  is 
received  in  the  birth  wrought  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  The 
old  man  is  in  bondage  to  sin,  loves  and  commends  it,  and 
has  no  proper  discernment  and  appreciation  of  holiness  and 
truth.  Therefore  the  old  man  and  the  new  man,  or  the 
natural  man  and  the  spiritual  man,  do  not  exist  as  two  nat- 
ures in  the  same  individual,  but  they  mark  opposing  nat- 
ures which  belong  to  and  distinguish  two  separate  classes 
of  men. 


Or;  Sin  and  Salvation.  121 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  men  are  sinners  naturally  and  in- 
nately. "  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  des- 
perately wicked.  Who  can  know  it?"  It  is  the  heart,  not 
the  life,  which  is  here  said  to  be  "deceitful  and  wicked." 
What  is  the  heart  if  it  is  not  that  which  naturally  belongs 
to  a  man,  and  is  part  and  parcel  of  his  being?  What  are 
"the  lusts  of  the  flesh"  and  "the  desires  of  the  flesh  and 
mind  "  but  the  lusts  and  desires  which  inherently  belong  to 
us?  Every  individual  in  every  nation,  tribe,  and  genera- 
tion is  a  sinner.  Jews  and  Gentiles,  one  and  all,  are  under 
sin.  "  The  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his 
youth."  "There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one;  there  is 
none  that  understandeth,  there  is  none  that  seeketh  alter 
God.  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way,  they  are  together 
become  unprofitable;-  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not 
one."  So  says  the  divine  record. 


1  -22  The  0!<l  and  the  New  Man : 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  CONSEQUENCES  OP  THE  FIRST  TRANSGRESSION  OF 
THE  FIRST  MAN. 


chapter  shall  be  devoted  to  the  consideration  of 
-J-  the  subject  of  eternal  death.  Is  there  such  a  thing  as 
eternal  death  ?  And  if  there  is,  what  is  it?  This  subject  we 
discuss  here  in  full,  and  in  its  connection  with  the  conse- 
quences of  the  first  sin  of  the  first  man.  All  sin  and  all  pen- 
alty connect  with  Adam's  sin.  Pelagians,  Arians,  and  Uni- 
tarians, all  rejecting  the  doctrines  of  original  sin,  and  hold- 
ing that  Adam's  fall  was  a  blessing  and  not  a  curse,  teach 
that  sin  is  not  a  curse,  and  that  God  sends  every  man  into 
the  world  under  his  blessing,  and  not  under  his  curse.  Uni- 
versalists  reject,  with  the  above-named  parties,  the  dogma 
of  original  sin  and  innate  depravity,  and  carry  the  princi- 
ples held  by  these  parties  to  their  final  and  ultimate  con- 
clusions. In  so  doing,  they  deny  that  God  was  angry  with 
the  race,  and  in  order  to  appease  his  own  wrath  and  satisfy 
his  own  justice,  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  to  die  for  men. 
The)'  deny  that  Christ's  death  was  intended  to  appease  God's 
wrath.  The  doctrine  of  suffering  for  sin,  and  of  eternal  pun- 
ishment for  sin,  they  hold  to  be  a  cunningly  devised  fab'le. 
That  it  was  any  part  of  Christ's  mission  to  save  men  from  an 
endless  hell,  they  most  positively  deny,  for  they  maintain 
there  is  no  such  place  as  an  endless  hell  to  be  saved  from. 
They  teach  that  man  cannot  commit  an  infinite  sin,  nor  vio- 
late an  infinite  law.  This  is  simply  building  upon  Pela- 
gian and  Arian  principles,  and  pushing  these  principles  out 
to  their  own  proper  and  ultimate  conclusions. 


Or,  Sin  and  /Salvation.  123 

Searching  for  the  truth  and  following  the  Scriptures,  we 
maintain  that  man  violated  an  infinite  law,  and  committed 
an  infinite  sin ;  that  this  sin  is  a  curse — as  there  is  infinite 
sin,  there  is  infinite  wrath ;  that  God's  wrath  abideth  on  all 
sin,  and  upon  every  sinner;  that  suffering  and  punishment 
are  inflicted  upon  men  for  sin ;  and  that  there  is  a  hell 
where  punishment  will  be  eternal. 

Sin  separates  its  author  from  God,  and  subjects  him  to 
God's  wrath  eternally.  Eternal  death  is  the  penalty  of  sin. 
Adam's  sin,  as  it  was  upon  him  and  his  posterity,  deserved 
this  penalty  just  as  any  and  every  other  sin  deserves  it. 
All  are  born  under  the  wrath  of  God,  and  liable  to  an  end- 
less hell. 

To  say  that  man  cannot  commit  an  infinite  sin,  and  can- 
not violate  an  infinite  law,  is  simply  to  say  that  man  cannot 
sin.  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  and  the  law 
of  God  is  infinite.  If  there  is  such  a  thing  as  sin  in  exist- 
ence, then  the  infinite  law  has  been  violated,  and  there  is 
infinite  sin.  If  there  is  not  such  a  sin,  then  we  need  not 
concern  ourselves  about  the  subject.  The  Bible  has  much 
to  say  about  sin,  and  always  in  condemnation  of  it. 

Here  we  are  going  to  consider  sin  as  it  is,  with  its  pen- 
alty, per  se.  We  will  consider  it  in  the  abstract  without 
any  expiation  or  atonement.  We  will  consider  it  with 
Christ  left  out  of  the  subject.  For  the  time,  we  will  meet 
the  Universalist  on  his  own  ground,  and  show  him  the  sub- 
ject within  his  own  intrenchments.  We  shall  be  careful, 
however,  to  set  forth,  from  this  point  of  observation,  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  the  word  of  God,  and  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Sin,  once  existing,  exists  forever.  Guilt,  once  incurred, 
is  eternal,  abstractly  considered.  Sin  can  never  change 
its  nature,  can  never  terminate  itself,  can  never  eventuate 
in  the  pardon  of  its  own  guilt.  Sooner  could  a  kingdom 
be  divided  against  itself  and  stand. 


124  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

Again,  obedience  can  never  abolish  sin,  or  in  any  meas- 
ure expiate  or  atone  for  it.  One  crime  existing,  and  the 
law  is  violated,  and  the  full  penalty  is  in  full  force,  and  no 
after  obedience  can  satisfy  for  this  one  sin.  The  obedience 
of  the  after  life  may  be  perfect,  but  it  will  avail  nothing 
for  the  sins  of  the  past.  A  moral  agent  guilty  of  a  breach 
of  the  law  can  never  satisfy  for  that  breach  of  law  by  any 
obedience  he  can  render.  The  law  says,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
covet."  A  breach  of  this  commandment  can  never  be  mend- 
ed by  any  after  compliance,  however  ready,  long,  or  full. 
Obedience  admits  of  no  supererogation.  Obedience  is  not 
satisfaction,  and  it  can  never  appease  the  claims  of  a  vio- 
lated law.  An  eternity  of  obedience  "can  never  remove  or 
mitigate  one  sin,  though  that  sin  was  committed  in  a  mo- 
ment. 

Moreover,  repentance  itself  can  never  change  the  char- 
acter of  sin,  or  in  the  slightest  degree  ameliorate  the  con- 
dition of  the  sinner.  Streaming  tears  might  flow  through 
the  ages;  griefs  and  groans  might  exercise  and  agonize  the 
soul  stained  with  guilt  to  the  latest  cycles  of  eternity,  with- 
out in  the  least  degree  atoning  for  the  sin  or  relieving  the 
case.  Repentance  which  wrestles  alone  in  the  contest  with 
sin  is  doomed  to  an  endless  defeat,  and  will  have  its  exist- 
ence alone  in  desperation  and  despair.  Repentance,  instead 
of  satisfying  for  sin,  instead  of  atoning  for  sin,  instead  of 
removing  the  guilt  of  sin,  will  as  long  as  it  continues  stand 
a  concession  of  the  existence  of  sin,  and  a  confession  of  the 
eternal.. demerits  thereof.  It  stands  as  a  witness  and  as  a 
judge,  attesting  the  crime  and  affixing  the  penalty. 

And  yet  again,  suffering,  however  varied,  however  ex- 
tensive, or  however  long  submitted  to,  cannot  in  any  wi.-;e 
relieve  the  guilt  or  annul  the  sin  once  existing.  Punish- 
ment can  never  annihilate  sin,  nor  exhaust  its  guilt,  nor  in 
any  measure  relax  the  penalty  due  thereto.  Punishment  is 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  125 

penalty,  or  the  infliction  of  penalty,  and  is  not  expiation, 
nor  satisfaction,  nor  substitution,  nor  release,  nor  annihila- 
tion. Coming  upon  the  sinner  as  the  consequence  of  sin, 
as  the  just  desert  and  wages  thereof,  punishment  can  never 
eliminate  sin,  remove  guilt,  or  satisfy  violated  law.  Pun- 
ishment, to  be  commensurate  with  sin,  must  be  infinite,  must 
be  eternal.  Sin  deserving  punishment  for  the  shortest  pos- 
sible time  must  deserve  it  forever.  The  sin  is  no  more 
changed  or  atoned  for  after  the  punishment  of  an  hour  or  a 
thousand  years  than  when  the  sin  first  existed  and  the  pun- 
ishment first  began.  If  you  are  going  to  meet  the  nature, 
demands,  and  deserts  of  sin  by  punishment,  you  must  pun- 
ish it  forever  and  ever.  If  sin  requires  and  deserves  to  be 
punished  at  all,  then  it  requires  and  deserves  to  be  punished 
eternally.  If  God  can  desist  from  punishing  sin  eternally, 
then  he  can  desist  from  punishing  it  at  all.  To  talk  of  its 
being  unjust  to  hold  men  under  the  condemnation  of  sin 
eternally,  and  to  punish  them  everlastingly,  is  to  talk  un- 
philosophically  and  unwisely.  It  is  as  unjust  to  punish  sin 
one  hour  as  it  is  to  punish  it  always. 

Yet  once  more.  The  law  of  God  can  never  release  from 
sin.  The  law  can  never  arrest  the  penalty,  or  wipe  out  the 
offense.  It  has  neither  power  nor  authority  on  this  side. 
It  can  command,  and  enforce,  and  execute  against  sin. 
"  The  sting  of  death  is  sin,  and  the  strength  of  sin  is  the 
law."  Death  is  brought  forth  by  sin,  and  there  is  no  law 
that  can  give  life  or  release  from  this  death.  So  far  forth 
as  law  works,  death  is  eternal. 

And  finally.  God,  in  his  absolute  nature  and  perfections 
— a  God  of  truth,  justice,  holiness,  goodness,  and  love — and 
under  the  requisitions  of  his  law,  which  law  is  like  himself, 
cannot  do  any  thing  else  than  punish  sin.  He  could  no  more 
pardon  sin  upon  mere  authority  vested  in  himself  than 
he  could  lie  or  deny  his  own  nature.  Sin  is  contrary  to  the 


126  The  Old  and  the.  New  Man: 


will  of  God,  and  in  opposition  to  him.  How  could  he,  with- 
out any  condemnation  of  sin,  release  from  its  penalty?  To 
do  so  would  be  to  put  good  for  evil  and  evil  for  good. 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  the  anger  of  God,  or  the  wrath 
of  the  Almighty.  Than  God's  wrath  nothing  is  more 
prominently  presented  in  the  Scriptures.  The  doctrine 
that  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  sinners  is  as  inevitably 
taught  therein  as  that  there  is  a  God  and  that  there  are 
sinners:  "God  is  angry  with  the  wicked  everyday"  (Ps. 
vii.  11);  "The  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him  that  belie v- 
eth  not  the  Son "  (John  iii.  36) ;  "  The  wrath  of  God  is 
revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  unright- 
eousness of  men"  (Rom.  i.  18);  "Because  of  these  things 
cometh  the  wrath  of  God  upon  the  children  of  disobedi- 
ence "  (Eph.  v.  6).  Anger,  or  wrath,  we  are  told,  is  a  pas- 
sion attributed  to  God  in-  accommodation  to  the  capacities 
and  comprehensions  of  men.  Possibly  so;  it  is,  neverthe- 
less, something  originating  in  God  and  emanating  from 
him.  In  one  sense,  wrath  in  the  Almighty  is  not  such  a 
passion  as  it  is  in  men:  in  men,  anger  often  rises  without 
any  provocation,  and  in  such  instances  is  wrong.  God 
never  indulges  anger,  nor  sends  forth  wrath  under  any 
such  circumstances,  nor  in  any  such  way.  God  hates  only 
that  which  is  hateful,  and  is  angry  only  with  that  which  is 
wrong.  Anger,  so  far  as  it  is  rightfully  excited  and  prop- 
erly indulged,  is  the  same  in  man  and  in  God.  If  we  may 
conclude  that  anger  is  a  passion  improper  and  impossible 
to  the  Almighty,  we  may  with  the  same  propriety  con- 
clude that  mercy  is  a  passion  improper  and  impossible 
to  him.  Anger,  or  wrath,  is  not  an  attribute  of  God  as  jus- 
tice and  holiness  are  attributes  of  his.  Neither  is  mercy 
an  attribute  of  his,  as  are  love  and  goodness.  Mercy  is  a 
mere  passion,  if  you  wish  to  call  it  such,  emanating  from 
God's  love  and  benevolence,  and  exercised  by  God  toward 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  127 

offenders.  Anger,  too,  is  a  passion  emanating  from  God's 
justice  and  holiness,  and  exercised  by  God  toward  and 
upon  sinners.  Had  there  been  no  sin,  there  had  been  no 
mercy  in  and  from  God,  as  there  had  been  no  wrath  in  and 
from  him.  Why  will  the  Universalist  boast  of  the  mercy 
of  God,  which  is  everlasting,  and  forget  and  ignore  his 
Avrath,  which  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  unright- 
eousness and  ungodliness  of  men,  and  which  abides  on  him 
who  is  wicked  and  unbelieving  forever  ? 

The  exercise  of  mercy,  and  the  bestowment  of  pardons 
provided  for  in  human  governments,  can  have  no  parallel 
in  God,  can  find  no  criterion  in  his  government,  and  can 
be  no  criterion  for  him.  Human  clemency  has  its  origin  in 
human  weakness.  Civil  rulers  and  judicial  officers  are  not 
possessed  of  omniscience  nor  of  omnipotence.  In  the  ad- 
ministration of  human  law  and  government,  mistakes  may 
be  made:  laws  may  not  be  properly  adjusted;  they  may  be 
harsh,  unreasonable,  and  cruel ;  testimony  may  be  deceptive 
or  wholly  false ;  the  innocent  may  be  condemned,  and  the 
penalty,  even  where  there  is  guilt,  may  be  too  severe.  In 
these  human  and  civil  imperfections  originates  the  necessity 
of  human  clemency  in  judicial  administration.  The  pre- 
rogative to  pardon,  lodged  with  the  head  of  the  human 
government,  is  based  on  the  imperfections  of  human  insti- 
tutions and  human  administrations.  No  imperfection  ad- 
heres in  God,  and  hence  there  is  no  necessity  for  such  im- 
perfections in  his  government  as  clemency  and  pardon.  He 
is  never  deceived,  nor  his  laws  out  of  poise.  He  is  omnis- 
cient and  omnipresent,  and  his  laws  just  and  good.  How 
absurd  to  infer,  from  what  man  in  his  weakness  and  impo- 
tence does,  what  God  should  and  will  do! 

We  have  seen,  as  appears  above,  that  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  without  Christ,  there  is  for  the  sinner  no  escape  from 
the  punishment  of  sin,  or  from  eternal  death.  The  subject 


128  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

must  now  be  looked  at  in  its  connection  with  Christ  and 
the  provision  he  has  made  for  salvation.  The  principles 
we  have  brought  out  and  advocated  above  are  equally  true, 
and  alike  applicable  in  the  presence  of  Christ  and  his  me- 
diation and  in  the  absence  thereof.  The  true  nature  of  the 
mission  and  achievements  of  Christ  is  found  in  alliance  with 
the  principles  above  developed  and  maintained. 

Of  Christ  and  his  work,  in  every  particular,  Universal- 
ists  maintain  false  views.  They  deny  that  Christ  ever  was 
the  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance,  power,  and 
eternity  with  the  Father.  They  insist  that  the  atonement 
known  to  the  Bible  is  not  a  "satisfaction  made  to  divine 
justice  by  an  innocent  Substitute,  on  behalf  of  the  guilty 
sinner — a  satisfaction  consisting  in  Christ  beariug  in  his 
own  person  the  punishment  due  to  the  sins  of  men,  and  suf- 
fering in  the  room  and  stead  of  the  sinner  the  penalty  of 
the  divine  law.  The  word  atonement  means  simply  recon- 
ciliation, and  the  sinner  was  the  recipient  thereof,  not  Je- 
hovah. (See  "  Salvation  and  Damnation,"  by  L.  F.  W. 
Andrews,  pp.  219,  227.) 

Rejecting  as  false  all  these  positions  of  the  Universalists, 
we  maintain  that 

1.  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  is  very  and  eternal  God,  of 
one  substance,  power,  and  eternity  with  the  Father. 

2.  That  he  took  upon  himself  human  nature,  and  died 
the  just  for  the  unjust. 

3.  He  died  to  appease  God's  wrath,  to  expiate  sin.     The 
expiation  of  sin  involves  as  much  the  reconciliation  of  God 
to  man  as  it  does  man  to  God. 

4.  Jesus  has,  by  his  death,  made  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  all  men,  and  all, men  will,  through  this  atonement,  at- 
tain to  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

All  this  is  plainly  declared  in  the  Scriptures:  "And  I  saw, 
and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God  "  (John  i.  34) ; 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  129 

"  I  believe  that  Jeous  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  "  (Acts  viii. 
37);  "And  straightway  he  preached  Christ  in  the  syna- 
gogues, that  he  is  the  Son  of  God  "  (Acts  ix.  20) ;  "  For  the 
Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  preached  among  you  by 
us,  even  by  me  and  Sylvanus  and  Timotheus,  was  not  yea 
and  nay,  but  in  him  was  yea  "  (2  Cor.  i.  19) ;  "  In  the  be- 
ginning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God  "  (John  i.  1)  ;  "  Who,  being  in  the  form 
of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  "  (Phil, 
ii.  6) ;  "And  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among 
us"  (John'i.  14);  "But  made  himself  of  no  reputation, 
and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made 
in  the  likeness  of  men;  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross  "  (Phil.  ii.  7,  8) ;  "  For  Christ 
also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust, 
that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the 
flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit"  (1  Peter  iii.  18);  "For 
when  we  were  yet  without  strength,  in  due  time  Christ  died 
for  the  ungodly"  (Rom.  v.  6);  "Wherefore  in  all  things 
it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he 
might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high-priest  in  things  per- 
taining to  God,  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the 
people"  (Hcb.  ii.  17);  "We  have  an  advocate  with  the- 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous;  and  he  is  the  propitia- 
tion for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world  "  (1  John  ii.  1)  ;  "There  shall  be  a 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust "  (Acts 
xxiv.  15);  "  For  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that 
are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ; 
they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life; 
and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  tho  resurrection  of 
damnation  "  (John  v.  28,  29). 

Observe  here,  they  that  have  done  evil  shall  come  forth 
9 


130  The  Old  and  f.'ir  j\>?<?  Man: 

.to  the  resurrection  of  damnation.  How  could  this  he,  if 
there  is  no  damnation  after  the  resurrection  and  in  a  future 
state?  This  question  answers  itself.  As  there  are  dead 
persons,  who  did  evil  when  living,  and  who  are  coming 
forth  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day  to  damnation, 
there  is  suffering  and  damnation  in  the  future  state  after 
the  resurrection. 

Salvation  has  been  proposed  and  suspended  upon  condi- 
tions— conditions  that  can  be  complied  with  and  which 
can  be  rejected.  Every  condition  involving  contingency, 
the  contingency  of  acceptance  and  rejection,  declares  and 
sustains  the  dogma  of  liability  to  eternal  death.  Every 
scripture  which  teaches  the  probability  or  possibility  of  the 
rejection  of  Jesus  by  man  teaches  the  doctrine  and  author- 
izes the  belief  that  the  rejecter  of  the  Son  of  God  will  be 
punished  with  eternal  death.  Salvation  being  offered  for 
acceptance  and  suspended  upon  conditions,  a  refusal  to  ac- 
cept and  a  failure  to  comply  must,  beyond  all  doubt,  result 
in  a  state  such  as  would  inevitably  accrue  to  the  sinner 
were  there  no  salvation  provided  and  offered — a  state  of 
condemnation  and  misery.  "  Pie  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized, shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be 
damned."  (Mark  xvi.  16.)  Here  is  salvation  on  the  con- 
dition of  faith,  and  here  is  damnation  on  the  persistence  in 
unbelief.  Salvation -and  damnation  are  antipodal  and  co- 
extensive in  their  terms.  If  salvation  here  includes  a  future 
state — and  it  surely  does — so  does  damnation.  If  salva- 
tion here  hangs  between  unbelief  and  faith — and  it  does, 
beyond  all  question — so  does  damnation.  You  cannot  sus- 
pend salvation  between  faith  and  unbelief  without  at  the 
same  time  suspending  damnation  likewise.  This  is  demon- 
stration itself.  It  is  impossible  to  have  a  contingency  that 
involves  the  possibility  of  salvation  that  does  not  at  the 
same  time  involve  the  possibility  of  damnation.  "  He  that 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  131 


rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my  words,  hath  one  that 
judgeth  him :  the  word  that  I  have  spoken,  the  same  shall 
judge  him  in  the  last  day."  (John  xii.  48.)  He  who  re- 
jects the  word  and  gospel  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  in  this 
life  shall  in  the  last  day,  at  the  end  of  time,  be  judged 
and  condemned  by  that  same  word  and  gospel. 

"  For  I  say  unto  you,  That  except  your  righteousness 
shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
(Matt.  v.  20.)  Here  is  an  unmistakable  condition  for  en- 
trance and  abode  in  heaven — a  condition  which  requires  in 
every  event,  and  in  every  case,  a  better  righteousness  than 
that  of  the  scribes  and  the  Pharisees.  This  text,  containing 
this  condition,  is  therefore  emphatic  in  its  assertion  that  the 
scribes- and  Pharisees,  among  the  Jews  and  of  the  Saviour's 
time,  should  not  be  permitted  to  have  an  inheritance  in 
heaven.  Final  exclusion  from  heaven  certainly  consigns 
to  endless  perdition.  Never  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heav- 
en, from  a  want  of  the  necessary  righteousness,  is  certainly 
to  be  adjudged  to  eternal  death.  The  word  of  Jesus  Christ 
will  most  surely  exist  forever  unchanged  and  true.  Through- 
out the  ages  of  eternity  will  be  read  the  fearful  and  living 
words  of  Jesus:  "For  I  say  unto  you,  That  except  your 
righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven;"  and  while  these  words  exist  the  scribes  and  Phar- 
isees therein  named  shall  have  no  place  in  heaven,  but  be 
shut  out  in  utter  darkness.  No  exclamations  of  horror,  nor 
eulogies  of  mercy,  nor  fanciful  parades  of  goodness,  nor  any 
thing  else,  can  obliterate  these  words  of  the  Son  of  God,  or 
change  the  doom  of  those  here  named. 

Sin  existing  and  never  forgiven  consigns  to  condemnation 
eternally,  and  this  is  death — eternal  death.  Christ  assures 
us  there  is  a  sin  which  hath  never  forgiveness.  AVho  com- 


132  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

mits  this  sin  abides  under  condemnation  evermore.  "  Where- 
fore I  say  unto  you,  All  manner  of  sin  and  blasphemy,  shall 
be  forgiven  unto  men;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men.  And  whosoever 
speaketh  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be  forgiven 
him ;  but  whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it 
shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in 
the  world  to  come."  (Matt.xii.  31,  32.)  The  Universal ist, 
when  he  comes  to  this  passage,  resorts  to  the  dodge  of  a  re- 
fined criticism  on  the  Greek  word  atov.  But  this  criticism 
will  by  no  means  serve  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  brought. 
Suppose  the  Greek  word,  atiuv,  here  translated  world,  does 
sometimes  mean  age  and  dispensation,  this  does  not  affect 
its  use  and  meaning  here.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that 
the  word  "denotes  duration  or  continuation  of  timt,"  and 
that  it  "signifies  any  thing  ancient,  which  has  endured, 
or  is  to  endure,  for  a  long  period."  The  Greek  lexicon 
says:  "Atw;  (fr.  azi,  ever,  and  tov,  being),  eternity;  an  age, 
life;  duration,  or  continuance  of  time;  a  period;  a  revolu- 
tion of  ages;  a  dispensation  of  Providence;  this  world,  or 
life  to  come."  So  Christ  means  to  say  that  this  sin  shall 
not  be  forgiven  in  this  life  nor  in  the  life  to  come — in  this 
world  nor  in  the  future  world — neither  now  nor  hereafter. 
But  to  show  still  further  how  futile  is  the  criticism  on  this 
word,  suppose  we  leave  out  the  thirty-second  verse,  which 
contains  this  word,  altogether,  and  then  it  is  still  declared 
that  this  sin  hath  never  forgiveness.  It  was  Christ  who  made 
this  declaration :  "  The  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
shall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men."  He  set  this  forth  in  con- 
nection with  and  in  exposition  of  his  own  work  for  the  chil- 
dren of  men.  There  is,  therefore,  notwithstanding  the  re- 
demptive work  of  Christ  and  the  dispensation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  a  sin  which  is  not  forgiven,  and  will  not  be  forgiven, 
unto  men.  We  may  then  conclude  that  there  is  a  sin  more 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  133 

indelible  than  that  "  written  with  a  pen  of  iron  and  the  point 
of  a  diamond,"  and  that  we  "  have  heard  what  the  prophets 
said  that  prophesy  lies." 

The  Bible,  conforming  its  declarations  to  sober  truth,  and 
its  style  to  divine  realities,  never  names  a  place  or  state 
which  has  no  actual  existence;  and  in  its  delineations  never 
uses  terms  calculated  to  mislead.  Terms  importing  the 
longest  duration  are  never  used  in  the  description  of  a  place 
or  state  of  brief  continuance.  The  Scriptures  everywhere 
set  forth  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  in  the  most 
literal  manner,  and  use  the  most  literal  terms  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  hell.  The  Bible  delineation  of  hell  is  most  sober 
and  awful.  '  The  future  duration  of  hell  is  commensurate 
with  eternity.  A  few  passages  of  Scripture  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  may  be  given 
and  considered: 

"And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not 
able  to  kill  the  soul ;  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to 
destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell."  (Matt.  x.  28.)  Here 
is  hell  named  as  a  place,  and  the  fate  of  those  who  are  sent 
into  it  described  as  the  destruction  of  soul  and  body.  This 
place  and  the  destruction  in  it  must  be  in  the  future  world, 
as  they  are  set  out  in  contrast  to  killing  the  body,  which 
simple  killing  of  the  body  can  only  take  place  in  this  world. 
If  we  read  this  passage  in  Luke,  it  is  still  more  strikingly 
manifest  that  it  is  in  a  future  state  and  comes  alone  after 
extinction  of  life  here:  "And  I  say  unto  you,  my  friends, 
Be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  and  after  that  have 
no  more  that  they  can  do.  But  I  will  forewarn  you  whom 
ye  shall  fear :  Fear  him,  which  after  he  hath  killed  hath 
power  to  cast  into  hell;  yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  him." 
(Luke  xii.  4,  5.) 

Those  that  kill  the  body,  and  can  do  no  more,  are  men — the 
persecutors  of  Christians.  He  who  can  kill,  and  then  hath 


134  The  Old  ami  the  New  Man : 

power  to  cast  into  hell,  is  God.  The  simple  killing  of  the 
body  is  here  in  this  present;  the  casting  of  soul  and  body 
into  hell  follows  the  extinction  of  this  present  life,  and  in- 
troduces to  a  future  state  and  fate.  This  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned. And  the  Uuiversalist,  perceiving  this,  expends  all 
his  force  in  trying  to  demonstrate  that  to  destroy  is  the  same 
as  to  annihilate. 

"  Then  shall  he  say  also  unto  them  on  the  left-hand,  De- 
part from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for 
the  devil  and  his  angels."  (Matt.  xxv.  41.)  Here  is  the 
fate  of  the  wicked.  The  Son  of  God  metes  them  out  their 
doom  by  driving  them  from  the  judgment-seat,  calling  them 
accursed,  and  sending  them  into  everlasting  fire.  What 
could  be  more  specific  of  the  future?  What  could  be  more 
expressive  of  punishment?  What  could  be  more  compre- 
hensive in  duration  ?  What  is  more  terrible  than  "  suffering 
the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire?"  Certainly  there  is  nothing 
so  expressive  of  its  perpetuity  as  everlasting  fire. 

"And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment, 
but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal."  (Matt.  xxv.  46.) 
THESE  are  distinguished  from  the  righteous,  and  answer 
to  "  them  on  the  left-hand "  who  are  driven  away  "  into 
everlasting  fire."  They  "  go  away  "  from  the  Lord ;  they 
"go  away  into  punishment,"  and  they  "go  away  into  ever- 
lasting punishment."  This  passage  is  clear  and  comprehen- 
sive— as  much  so  as  human  language  will  permit  it  to  be. 
For  a  passage  as  much  in  their  favor  as  this  passage  is 
against  them  the  Universaliste  Avould  give  any  thing.  The 
best  they  can  do  is  to  depend  on  negative  arguments,  and 
remote  and  indifferent  proofs,  as  there  is  not  a  word  in  the 
divine  record  which  intimates  the  termination  of  the  future 
punishment  of  the  wicked.  This  scripture  describes  what 
will  take  place  at  the  end  of  this  present  state  of  things — 
at  the  end  of  this  present  world — and  teaches  us  that  Christ 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  135 

will  then  consign  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  to  their 
final  habitations,  awarding  to  the  one  life  and  to  the  other 
punishment.  This  text  goes  as  far  to  establish  the  eternal 
duration  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  as  it  does  the 
eternal  duration  of  the  life  and  happiness  of  the  righteous. 
In  the  original  text  the  word,  translated  everlasting  in  the 
one  case  and  eternal  in  the  other,  is  the  same.  The  Greek 
word  is  atwvtoy,  answering  to  the  Latin  word  ceternam. 
This  word  is  most  literal,  and  expresses  the  longest  and 
most  absolute  duration. 

The  case  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  (Luke  xvi.  19— 
31)  has  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  future  punish- 
ment, and  may  be  adduced  as  proof  in  the  premises.  This 
narrative,  whether  you  call  it  parable  or  history,  dis- 
closes a  future  world  and  exhibits  the  destiny  of  those  who 
enter  therein.  That  it  points  to  the  future,  and  that  it  de- 
scribes existence  and  destiny  after  the  termination  of  this 
present  life,  cannot  be  denied. 

"  There  was  a  certain  rich  man.  .  .  .  There  was  a 
certain  beggar,  named  Lazarus.  .  .  .  The  beggar  died, 
and  was  carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom;  the 
rich  man  also  died,  and  was  buried ;  and  in  hell  he  lifted  up 
his  eyes,  being  in  torments."  This  tells  of  existence  and 
condition  in  this  world,  and  the  termination  of  these  fol- 
lowed by  existence  and  condition  in  another  and  future 
abode.  This  scripture  introduces  to  our 'notice,  with  many 
other  points,  the  doctrine  of  the  rewards  and  happiness  of 
the  good  and  pious  in  the  world  to  come.  But  of  the  ex- 
istence of  heaven,  arid  of  the  future  bliss  of  those  who  are 
true  and  holy  here,  it  is  not  necessary  to  discourse  at  this 
present  juncture.  Here  is  future  misery,  or  a  man  suffering 
anguish  after  this  life  has  ceased.  Here  in  this  life  the  rich 
man  was  opulent  and  comfortable  all  the  while.  So  far  as 
worldly  goods  and  worldly  gratifications  are  attainable  and 


136  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

enjoyable,  he  was  successful  and  happy  down  to  the  hour  of 
his  death.  But  his  life  here  ended,  and  so  did  his  happi- 
ness, and  the  sources  of  his  happiness.  He  died.  He  was 
buried.  He  went  down  into  hell.  He  was  in  torments. 
This  woe  and  anguish  with  which  he  is  tormented  are  not 
in  this  present  life.  He  is  dead  and  buried.  His  body  is 
unconscious  and  in  the  tomb.  His  soul  is  in  hell — is  in  the 
dark  and  infernal  regions  beyond  the  confines  of  this  world — 
and  there  he  is  tormented.  The  words,  "  Son,  remember 
that  thou  in  thy  life-time  receivedst  thy  good  things,  and 
likewise  Lazarus  evil  things;  but  now  he  is  comforted,  and 
thou  art  tormented,"  demonstrate  the  punishment  and  suf- 
fering to  be  in  another  world,  and  not  in  this. 

In  this  scripture  the  word  hell,  or  afirh  must  refer  to  and 
mean  not  the  grave  where  the  body  is  concealed,  but  the 
place  where  the  wicked  are  sent  after  death,  and  where  they 
are  punished  forever,  just  as  the  words  Abraham's  bosom,  or 
x<d-oy  Afipaa/i,  must  refer  to  and  mean  not  the  grave  where 
the  body  is  laid  away,  but  the  place  where  the  righteous  are 
"carried  after  death  and  rewarded  evermore.  These  truths 
cannot  be  ignored ;  they  cannot  be  puffed  away  by  sarcasm 
or  criticism.  It  is  useless  to  say  that  aorh  translated  hell, 
means  the  grave,  or  that  the  whole  narrative  is  only  fiction 
or  parable.  If  the  narrative  be  only  a  parable,  the  truths 
it  sets  forth  are  none  the  less  truths,  and  the  future  woe  and 
bliss  to  which  it  alludes,  and  which  it  delineates,  are  none 
the  less  real.  If  ady  does  mean  the  invisible  place,  the 
abode  of  the  dead,  the  grave,  etc.,  as  the  lexicons  say  it 
does,  it  nevertheless  means  hell,  the  place  or  state  of  pun- 
ishment for  the  wicked  after  death ;  and  it  certainly  has  that 
meaning  in  this  place. 

That  the  state  of  this  rich  man  is  fixed  and  unal- 
terable, and  that  his  punishment  in  hell,  where  he  is,  shall 
endure  without  termination  or  intermission,  is  put  beyond 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  1!J7 

question  by  this  passage :  "And  besides  all  this,  between  us 
and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed :  so  that  they  that  would 
pass  from  them  to  you  cannot;  neither  can  they  pass  to  us, 
that  would  come  from  thence." 

There  is  a  place  in  the  domain  of  God  in  which  sinners 
are  shut  up  after  this  life  to  be  punished  for  their  iniquities. 
There  is  another  passage  of  Scripture  so  expressive  on  this 
subject  that  it  may  be  introduced  here  and  considered  in  its 
bearings.  In  the  book  of  St.  Mark,  ix.  43-48,  it  is  written : 
"And  if  thy  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off:  it  is  better  for  thee 
to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than  having  two  hands  to  go  into 
hell,  into  the  fire  that  never  shall  be  quenched:  where  their 
worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  And  if  thy 
foot  offend  thee,  cut  it  off;  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  halt 
into  life,  than  having  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  hell,  into  the  fire 
that  never  shall  be  quenched:  where  their  worm  dieth  not, 
and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  And  if  thine  eye  offend  thee, 
pluck  it  out:  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God  with  one  eye,  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into 
hell-fire:  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  n<ft 
quenched." 

From  this  scripture,  which  sets  forth  the  truth  before  our 
eyes,  and  by  which  we  are  most  solemnly  admonished,  we 
may  learn  wisdom  betimes.  It  contains  one  of  Christ's 
most  earnest  iterations.  It  is  a  most  solemn  presentation  of 
duty  and  destiny.  Conduct  and  doom  are  inseparably 
linked  together  for  this  world  and  the  next.  Surely  none 
shall  be  found  bold  enough  to  move  his  tongue  against  any 
of  these  words  of  the  Master.  They  present  to  us  eternal 
life  and  eternal  death  in  antithesis  and  in  contingent  atti- 
tudes ;  one  attained,  the  other  escaped ;  one  lost,  the  other 
fallen  into.  While  there  is  a  glorious  possibility  of  gaining 
life,  there  is  awful  danger  of  falling  under  the  doom  of  eter- 
nal death.  The  indulgence  of  "  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  and 


138  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride  of  life,"  is  forfeiture 
of  an  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  must  event- 
uate in  being  cast  into  "hell,  "  where  the  worm  dieth  not,  and 
the  fire  is  not  quenched."  He  who  scandalizes  himself  by 
the  gratification  of  his  lusts  shall  be  cast  into  hell,  where 
"  worn  and  wasted  with  enormous  woe"  he  shall  be  always 
dying,  yet  never  dead. 

In  this  text  the  word  ^cswav  is  used  in  the  original,  and 
is  the  most  approved  word  for  designating  the  place  of  future 
woe.  The  word  means  "  hell,  hell-fire,  torments  of  hell."  So 
it  is  defined  by  the  lexicons.  AVho  can  describe  the  woes  that 
rise  through  all  the  realms  where  devils  damned  and  sinners 
doomed  forever  dwell?  Jesus  the  omniscient  has  here  in 
these  awful  words  of  his  described  the  hell  and  its  perpe- 
tuity to  which  lustful  sinners  shall  be  sentenced  in  the  world 
to  come.  "The  worm- that  never  dies!"  What  heart  can 
bear  the  thought?  what  eye  endure  the  sight?  "  The  worm," 
as  Pollok  would  portray  it,  "in  its  writhings  infinite,"  and 
with  its  "complicated  foldings,"  "twisting"  in  and  "twist- 
ing out  in  horrid"  revolutions!  This  worm,  more  awful 
than  poetic  fancy  can  depict  it,  is  to  feed  upon  the  lost  for- 
ever and  ever.  "  The  lost  shall  burn  in  fire  unconsumed, 
world  without  end." 

The  question  of  annihilation  is  one  which  Jias  been  con- 
nected with  the  subject  of  eternal  death.  It  is  insisted  that 
the  wicked  will  be  annihilated  at  the  last,  and  that  their 
punishment  will  cease  with  the  termination  of  their  exist- 
ence; that  this  is  the  punishment  and  destruction  to  which 
they  are  doomed.  It  is  well  to  receive  instruction,  learn 
wisdom,  and  correctly  understand  this  subject.  Let  us  see 
that  our  words  are  in  righteousness  and  truth,  and  that  our 
positions  accord  with  the  judgments  of  God's  word.  An- 
nihilate means  to  reduce  to  nothing,  and  annihilation  is  re- 
duction to  nothing.  Such  a  thing  as  annihilation  has  not 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  139 

been  indicated  by  the  punishments  which  God  has  inflicted 
upon  the  wicked  under  human  observation.  God  punishes 
the  wicked  in  many  ways,  and  with  divers  judgments,  but 
never  has  he  annihilated  any  one  so  far  as  the  issue  has  been 
known  to  us.  Individuals  and  nations  has  he  punished 
with  losses  and  tortures,  but  never  has  there  been  a  case  of 
annihilation  so  far  as  human  knowledge  extends.  The  Al- 
mighty has  punished  some  with  natural  death,  or  the  ter- 
mination of  the  present  life,  but  natural  death  is  not  annihi- 
lation, nor  does  it  result  in  annihilation ;  if  it  did,  then  the 
wicked  and  the  righteous  would  all  be  annihilated  together,  for 
the  righteous  fall  under  natural  death  as  well  as  the  wicked. 
Cain  and  Saul,  Israel  and  Gomorrah,  were  all  punished,  but 
none  of  them  annihilated.  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  were  over- 
thrown— they  were  even  consumed  by  fire — but  they  were 
not  annihilated  so  far  as  the  inhabitants  thereof  were  con- 
cerned ;  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  in  the  inhabitants  of  these 
places,  will  be  judged  and  tested  in  the  last  day,  when  the 
secrets  of  all  hearts  shall  be  made  known.  (See  Matthew 
x.  15.) 

The  word  "  destroy,"  while  it  sometimes  means  the  same  as 
the  word  "annihilate,"  is  far  from  being  the  same  in  its  gener- 
al signification.  The  word  "  destruction,"  while  it  sometimes 
means  the  same  as  the  word  "  annihilation,"  is  far  from  being 
the  same  with  it  in  general  signification.  The  word  "de- 
struction" is  used  to  convey  the  idea  of  complete  overthrow, 
absolute  desolation,  utter  and  eternal  ruin — such  as  the 
overthrow  of  empires,  the  desolation  of  cities,  the  subjuga- 
tion nt'  armies,  and  the  demolition  of  authority.  In  many 
places  in  the  Scriptures  "destruction"  means  the  same  as 
"  perdition  "  and  "  eternal  death."  In  Matthew  vii.  13,  "  de- 
struction," a-aj/.scav,  means  eternal  death,  or  the  place  or 
estate  of  ruin  and  misery. 

So  far  as  the  common  sense  of  mankind  can  determine 


140  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

the  question  of  future  and  eternal  punishment,  it  is  both 
reasonable  and  just.  The  common  sense  of  mankind,  we 
are  aware,  is  not  authoritative  in  settling  questions  of  doc- 
trine and  principles  of  government.  All  issues  must  be 
appealed  to  divine  authority  and  to  divine  revelation.  But 
for  divine  teaching  mankind  would  be  utterly  ignorant  of 
future  punishment,  and  even  of  future  existence.  The  Bi- 
ble is  therefore  the  only  authority  on  the  point  involved. 
The  word  of  the  Lord  is  precious  on  this  behalf.  But  we 
insist  that  there  is  nothing  abhorrent  to  an  enlightened  judg- 
ment in  the  doctrine  of  punishment  for  sin,  and  that  there 
is  nothing  repugnant  to  the  sense  of  justice  in  punishing 
eternally  the  soul  who  has  rejected  the  counsel  of  God,  and, 
•persisting  in  rebellion,  would  not  have  the  salvation  offered 
in  love  and  goodness.  To  abolish  punishment  for  sin  is  to 
break  down  all  distinctions  of  right  and  wrong,  all  differ- 
ence between  the  holy  and  the  profane,  between  the  clean 
and  the  unclean,  and  to  make  the  good  and  the  bad  alike 
worthy  of  praise,  and  alike  entitled  to  reward.  This  is  in- 
consistent with  the  very  words  themselves  and  the  very  nat- 
ure of  things,  and  is  shocking  to  common  decency.  Wrath 
and  mercy,  justice  and  goodness,  combine  in  a  testimony 
against  the  everlasting  demerit  of  sin  and  the  eternal  in- 
famy of  the  ungodly.  The  wicked  shall  go  away  into  ever- 
lasting punishment,  where  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnash- 
ing: of  teeth. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  141 


CHAPTER  X. 

GOD,  WITHOUT  WHOM  AND  IN  THE  REJECTION  OF 
WHOM  THERE  is  No  SALVATION. 

HAVING  proceeded  thus  far  in  the  discussion  of  the 
subject  in  hand,  it  is  proper  to  state  that  hitherto  the 
existence  of  God  has  been  taken  in  this  discussion  as  a  con- 
ceded fact,  and  his  character  as  well  known. 

Here,  as  essentially  pertaining  to  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration, it  is  proper  to  treat  the  points  involved  in  the 
being  and  perfections  of  God.  There  is  a  God.  This  is  an 
essential  fact  in  moral  conceptions.  Without  a  God  there 
can  be  no  moral  principles,  no  obligations,  no  rights,  no  law, 
no  government,  and  no  salvation. 

Whence  is  God?  and  who  and  what  is  he?  He  is  of 
and  from  himself.  He  is  self-existent.  He  is  not  self-cre- 
ated, which  involves  an  absurdity  and  an  impossibility,  but 
he  is  "  I  AM  THAT  I  AM,"  "Jehovah,"  existing  of  himself, 
eternal,  immutable.  He  is  a  being  with  essential  essence 
and  personality,  and  possesses  whatever  is  inseparable  from 
these. 

Essence  is  absolutely  essential  to  existence.  In  the  use 
which  has  been  made  of  them,  the  words  "essence"  and  "be- 
ing" are  of  very  nearly  the  same  meaning.  The  word  "es- 
sence "  is  used  here  in  the  sense  of  substance.  God  has  an  es- 
sence, or  substance,  which  is  the  basis  of  his  being,  or  exist- 
ence. He  is  a  being,  and  not  a  mere  ideal  conception.  He  is 
not  matter,  nor  is  he  material ;  and  yet  he  has  a  substance, 
Avhich  constitutes  his  being.  He  is  not  so  ethereal  as  to  be 
only  an  idea,  any  more  than  he  is  so  gross  as  to  be  mere  mat- 


142  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

ter.  It  is  very  difficult,  when  we  divest  our  minds  of  the  idea 
of  matter,  to  conceive  of  essence,  or  substance,  which  consti- 
tutes real  existence;  and  yet  we  must  do  so,  if  we  would 
have  a  proper  conception  of  God  and  of  all  spiritual  beings. 
God  is  not  a  mere  idea  in  the  mind.  He  has  a  being  inde- 
pendent of  all  conception  outside  of  himself.  While  he  is 
not  matter,  and  while  matter,  which  constitutes  the  gross 
materials  of  this  world,  is  not  God,  and  while  he  is  not  a  ma- 
terial God,  but  a  Spirit,  yet  there  is  an  essence,  or  substance, 
which  belongs  to  God,  and  of  itself,  and  in  its  kind,  is  just 
as  real  and  as  tangible  as  the  substance  of  material  things. 
To  confound  God  and  the  universe,  contending  that  God 
exists  in  all  material  things,  and  that  stars  and  clouds,  rocks 
and  sands,  plants  and  beasts,  are  parts  of  God,  is  most  irra- 
tional and  absurd.  To  represent,  as  some  have  done,  that 
the  divine  nature  is  a  certain  force,  or  energy,  diffused 
throughout  the  A\7hole  universe,  and  acts  in  every  part  of 
the  great  structure,  falls  very  far  short  of  the  truth,  and 
is  nothing  more  than  a  Utopian  dream.  It  is  true  that  God 
is  everywhere  present,  and  acts;  governs,  and  executes  his 
Avill,  in  every  place;  but  he  is  not  diffused  into  nature,  nor 
imparted  in  his  essence  to  any  creature,  or  any  thing.  The 
divine  nature  is  unlike  any  and  every  other  nature,  and  the 
divine  essence  is  distinct  from  the  essence  of  the  universe, 
and  the  Divine  Being  is  separate  from  and  independent  of 
every  other  being.  God  is  subject  to  none  of  the  mutations 
incident  to  materiality.  He  cannot  be  increased  or  dimin- 
isned,  expanded  or  contracted,  divided  or  diffused.  The 
pantheistic  theory  is  equally  destitute  of  authority  from 
Scripture  and  philosophy.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  which 
scheme  is  farthest  removed  from  the  dictates  of  common 
reason — the  pantheistic  theory,  which  ccnfounds  God  with 
the  universe,  or  the  mythical  theory,  which  makes  God  only 
an  idea. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  143 

God,  in  his  personal  entity,  is  constituted  of  essence;  and4 
he  is  not  the  universe,  nor  space,  nor  any  part  of  either.  His 
essence  is  neither  infusible  nor  diffusible.  The  universe  is 
not  in  any  way  constituted  of  his  essence.  He  has  neither 
human  nor  angelic  form,  but  he  has  form  of  his  own.  In 
his  substance,  "  God  is  a  Spirit."  To  the  support  of  this 
position  sufficient  testimony  can  be  adduced.  The  Bible  is 
replete  with  teaching  to  this  effect.  Jesus  asserted :  "  God 
is  a  Spirit;  and  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in 
spirit  and  in  truth."  God  is  neither  dead  nor  inert,  but  he 
is  a  living  being,  having  life  in  himself,  and  acting  of  him- 
self. Jeremiah,  the  inspired  prophet,  says :  "  But  the  Lord 
is  the  true  God;  he  is  the  living  God."  Paul,  the  inspired 
apostle,  in  many  places  of  his  writings,  calls  him  "the  liv- 
ing God."  David,  the  psalmist,  cries  out  for  "  the  living 
God."  As  a  living  God  he  is  the  source  of  all  vitality,  and 
the  author  of  all  being.  He  is  the  Maker  of  all  things. 

Both  Manicheism  and  Polytheism  are  alike  unphilosoph- 
ical  and  unscriptural.  The  doctrine  of  gods  many  and  of 
lords  many  cannot  be  admitted  into  the  creed  of  a  philoso- 
pher, or  of  a  Christian.  God  is  not  present  in  one  place  as 
light  and  in  another  place  as  darkness,  nor  does  he  preside 
over  light  while  another  deity  presides  over  darkness.  God 
is  absolute  and  perfect,  and  cannot  divide  his  dominion  with 
another.  God  is  one  and  indivisible,  pure  and  unconi- 
pounded,  absolute  and  alone — the  same  yesterday,  to-day, 
and  forever.  Ko  learning,  however  beautified  and  orna- 
mented by  the  gilded  splendors  of  rhetoric,  and  no  genius, 
however  powerful  and  sublime,  can  give  any  credibility  to 
the  fiction  of  many  and  different  deities.  No  doctrine  is 
more  fallacious  and  dangerous  than  the  doctrine  of  Poly- 
theism. It  is  the  doctrine  most  conducive  to  idolatry,  and 
wherever  it  prevails  ridiculous  superstitions,  extravagance, 
madness,  and  lewdne^s  find  favor.  The  law  of  Moses  con- 


144  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

tains  a  declaration  asserting  that  there  is  but  one  God,  and 
also  contains  a  protest  against  a  recognition  of  any  other : 
"  Unto  thee  it  was  shewed,  that  thou  mightest  know  that  the 
Lord  he  is  God ;  there  is  none  else  beside  him."  "  Hear,  O 
Israel:  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord;  and  thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  might."  The  utterance  of  the  prophet 
Isaiah  is  equally  emphatic  in  setting  forth  the  oneness  of 
God,  and  in  protesting  against  any  claim  or  recognition  of 
any  other:  "I  am  the  Lord:  that  is  my  name;  and  my 
glory  will  I  not  give  to  another,  neither  my  praise  to  grav- 
en images."  These  are  portions  of  the  inspired  writings 
which,  as  distinct  utterances,  set  forth  the  oneness  of  God. 
Many  similar  declarations,  in  more  or  less  clearly  defined 
terms,  might  be  given  from  the  Scriptures,  confirming  and 
establishing  the  doctrine  that  "there  is  but  one  living  and 
true  God." 

The  existing,  universe  and  the  administration  thereof 
demonstrate  that  there  is  only  one  God ;  there  is  unity  and 
uniformity  in  these.  The  universe  is  not  made  up  of  sep- 
arate and  isolated  worlds,  bearing  no  relation  to  each  other, 
but  it  is  a  unit,  every  portion  being  but  a  part  of  the  whole. 
There  is  in  the  universe  great  variety — nevertheless,  it  is  not 
the  variety  which  finds  existence  in  straggling  and  antago- 
nistic atoms,  but  it  is  the  variety  which  finds  its  beauty  and 
utility  in  harmony  and  unity.  The  world  throughout  is  a 
system,  showing  that  it  was  designed  by  one  mind,  produced 
by  one  hand,  and  is  under  the  jurisdiction  of  one  Ruler. 

God  is  eternal,  immutable,  ubiquitous,  omnipotent,  and 
omniscient.  He  is  holy  and  just,  good  and  true. 

God  is  "  the  high  and  lofty  One  that  inhabitcth  eternity." 
He  is  "  the  everlasting  God."  Without  beginning  of  days 
or  end  of  time,  he  always  was  and  always  will  be;  he  is 
"  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,"  "  the  beginning  and  the  end." 


Of,  Sin  and  Salvation.  145 

"  the  first  and  the  last."  "  Before  the  mountains  were 
brought  forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the 
world,  even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  thou  art  God." 
"  Thy  throne  is  established  of  old ;  thou  art  from  everlast- 
ing." "  Thy  years  are  throughout  all  generations.  Of  old 
hnst  thou  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth;  and  the  .heav- 
ens are  the  work  of  thy  hands.  They  shall  perish,  but  thou 
*halt  endure;  yea,  all  of  them  shall  wax  old  like  a  gar- 
ment, and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  change  them,  and  they 
shall  be  changed ;  but  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years 
shall  have  no  end."  To  be,  and  yet  with  no  beginning,  and 
to  be,  and  yet  with  no  ending — all  of  which  the  human  mind, 
when  instructed,  can  conceive  and  understand — is  what  is 
meant  by  eternal  existence;  and  this  pertains  to  God.  Suc- 
cession makes  no  impression  on  an  ever-enduring  substance. 
Succession,  as  relates  to  the  lapse  of  time,  neither  subtracts 
from  nor  adds  to  an  ever-enduring  essence.  God's  eter- 
nal duration  is  independent  and  absolute.  His  eternal  du- 
ration has  no  dependence  upon  time,  and  no  relation  there- 
to, except  that  he  existed  before  time  began,  and  he  will 
exist  after  time  is  no  more,  and  his  existence  continued  while 
time  went  on.  Long  after  the  mode  and  computation  of 
time  have  .ceased,  God,  with  his  inherent  perfections,  will 
still  exist,  the  immortal  and  ever-living  God. 

The  Almighty  is  as  immutable  as  he  is  enduring.  Amid 
the  mutations  of  time  and  things  Jehovah  abides  "  the  same 
yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever."  St.  James,  writing  to  and 
greeting  the  twelve  tribes  which  were  scattered  abroad,  and 
admonishing  his  brethren  against  errors,  asserts :  "  Every 
good  gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above,  and  cometh 
doM  n  from  the  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is  no  variable- 
ness, neither  shadow  of  turning."  The  great  "I  AM"  as- 
serts of  himself:  "I  am  the  Lord:  I  change  not;  therefore 
ye  sons  of  Jacob  are  not  consumed."  God  in  his  essence 
10 


1 40  The  Oil  and  the  New  &!<„, : 

is  unchangeable,  and  in  his  perfections  is  immutable.  He 
cannot  lose  his  perfections,  he  cannot  ignore  any  of  his  at- 
tributes. In  his  word,  oath,  and  law  he  can  never  change. 
When  he  commands  it  stands  fast.  He  never  changes  his 
law.  It  io  the  same  throughout  eternity.  He  never  changes 
in  his  relation  to  and  his  estimate  of  sin  and  righteousness. 
He  always  cor.demns  the  one  and  approves  the  other.  He 
is  without  any  variation,  holy,  good,  and  true.  But  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  in  his  administration  God  docs 
change,  and  so  changes  that  he  does  the  things  which  he 
said  he  would  not  do,  and  fails  to  do  the  things  which  he 
said  he  would  do.  The  prayers  of  his  creatures  change  his 
administration.  Many  things  have  been  done  in  answer  to 
prayer  which  would  not  have  been  had  no  prayer  been  of- 
fered. Prayer  avails  to  change  God,  and  to  so  change  him 
as  to  turn  away  his  curse  and  bring  his  blessing.  St.  James 
sets  this  forth  in  a  recital  of  the  case  of  Elias:  "The  ef- 
fectual, fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much. 
Elias  was  a  man  subject  to  like  passions  as  we  are,  and  he 
prayed  earnestly  that  it  might  not  rain ;  and  it  rained  not 
on  the  earth  by  the  space  of  three  years  and  six  months. 
And  he  prayed  again,  and  the  heaven  gave  rain,  and  the 
earth  brought  forth  her  fruit."  Another  case  to. which 
reference  may  be  made  is  the  case  of  Nineveh.  The  Lord 
sent  Jonah  to  that  place  to  preach  unto  it  the  doctrines 
which  he  should  bid  him.  And  Jonah  proclaimed  the  word 
of  the  Lord  and  said:  "Yet  forty  days,  and  Nineveh  shall 
be  overthrown."  That  was  positive  and  emphatic.  "The 
people  of  Nineveh  believed  God,"  as  his  word  had  been  de- 
clared to  them  by  Jonah,  and  they  proclaimed  a  fast,  and 
put  on  sackcloth,  and  turned  away  from  their  evil  way,  and 
cried  mightily  unto  God.  "And  God  saw  their  works,  that 
they  turned  from  their  evil  way;  and  God  repented  of  the 
evil  that  he  said  that  he  would  do  unto  them ;  and  he  did 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  147 

it  not."  Another  case  in  point,  and  one  of  great  force  and 
beauty,  is  the  case  of  Hezekiah :  "  In  those  days  was  Heze- 
kiah  sick  unto  death.  And  the  prophet  Isaiah  the  son  of 
Amoz  came  to  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
Set  thine  house  in  order;  for  thou  shalt  die,  and  not  live. 
Then  he  turned  his  face  to  the  wall,  and  prayed  unto  the 
Lord,  saying,  I  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  remember  now  how  I 
have  walked  before  thee  in  truth  and  with  a  perfect  heart, 
and  have  done  that  which  is  good  in  thy  sight.  And  Heze- 
kiah wept  sore.  And  it  came  to  pass,  afore  Isaiah  was  gone 
out  into  the  middle  court,  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 
to  him,  saying,  Turn  again,  and  tell  Hezekiah  the  captain 
of  my  people,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  David  thy 
father,  I  have  heard  thy  prayer,  I  have  seen  thy  tears ;  be- 
hold, I  will  heal  thee;  on  the  third  day  thou  shalt  go  up 
unto  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  I  will  add  unto  thy  days 
fifteen  years." 

Here  are  two  cases  where  the  Lord  said  he  would  do  and 
did  not ;  where  he  repented  and  turned  away  from  his  own 
purpose  and  from  his -wrath.  No  objection  can  be  "urged 
against  the  word  "change"  as  applied  to  the  Lord  so  long 
as  it  is  written :  "  Thou  shalt  die,  and  not  live ; "  "  Behold, 
I  will  heal  tbee;"  "And  God  repented  of  the  evil  that  he 
had  said  that  he  would  do  unto  them,  and  he  did  it  not." 
Nothing  is  gained  either  by  saying  that  the  individuals  and 
peoples  concerned  changed.  This  does  not  affect  the  case 
at  all. 

The  ubiquity  of  God  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
this  doctrine  is  consonant  to  reason  and  nature.  God  is 
everywhere.  He  is  present  everywhere  at  one  and  the  same 
time,,and  always.  Solomon  reverently  addresses  the  Al- 
mighty in  these  words :  "  Behold,  heaven  and  the  heaven  of 
heavens  cannot  contain  thee."  David,  in  sublime  strains, 
magnifies  the  omniscient  God,  and  in  most  beautiful  and 


1 48  Tiie  Old  and  the  Neiv  M<ni. : 

magnificent  terms  sets  forth  his  omnipresence:  "Whither 
shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit?  or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy 
presence?  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there;  if  I 
make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold,  thou  art  there.  If  I  take  the 
wings  of  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of 
the  sea,  even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right- 
hand  shall  hold  me.  If  I  say,  Surely  the  darkness  shall 
cover  me;  even  the  night  shall  be  light  about  me.  Yea, 
the  darkness  hideth  not  from  thee;  but  the  night  shineth  as 
the  day ;  the  darkness  and  the  light  are  alike  to  thee."  In- 
terrogatively God  delivers  to  Jeremiah  a  description  of 
himself:  "Am  I  a  God  at  hand,  saith  the  Lord,  and  not  a 
God  afar  off?  Can  any  hide  himself  in  secret  places  that 
I  shall  not  see  him  ?  saith  the  Lord.  Do  not  I  fill  heaven 
and  earth?  saith  the  Lord."  In  his  knowledge,  oversight, 
and  administration,  God  is  everywhere  present,  filling  im- 
mensity; and,  in  this  way,  he  is  alike  present  everywhere; 
but  in  his  personal  entity  he  is  in  heaven  as  he  is  not  in 
hell,  and  as  he  is  not  in  any  other  place.  This  is  a  vital 
truth"  Avhich  should  always  be  recognized.  Verily,  God 
must  not  be  materialized  nor  localized,  for  he  himself  saith, 
"  Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth?"  And  the  apostle  teaches 
that  "we  ought  not  to  think  that  the  Godhead  is  like  unto 
gold,  or  silver,  or  stone,  graven  by  art  and  man's  device." 
But  God  is  in  heaven  as  he  is  nowhere  else ;  and  in  heaven 
he  is  seen,  comprehended,  and  communed  with  as  he  is  not 
seen,  comprehended,  and  communed  with  in  any  other  place. 
Jesus  represents  himself  as  having  come,  when  he  took  hu- 
man nature,  down  from  heaven :  "And  no  man  hath  as- 
cended up  to  heaven  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven, 
even  the  Sou  of  man  which  is  in  heaven;"  "For  Lcame 
down  from  heaven;"  "The  second  man  is  the  Lord  from 
heaven."  We  are  taught  to  pray  to  "our  Father  which  is 
in  heaven."  Jesus  Christ  "ascended  into  heaven,  and  sit- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  149 

teth  on  the  right-hand  of  God  the  Father  Almighty."  A 
man  is  present,  wherever  he  sees,  hears,  and  knows  what  is 
going  on,  and  participates  therein ;  and  as  God  sees  every 
thing  that  is  to  be  seen  in  every  place,  and  hears  every  thing 
that  is  to  be  heard  in  every  place,  and  knows  every  thing 
that  is  to  be  known  in  every  place,  and  participates  in  ev- 
ery occurrence  in  the  range  of  space,  he  is  everywhere, 
though  his  essence  and  personal  entity  are  not  diffused 
through  all  space;  and  this  Avhile  it  may  be  true,  as  has 
been  said,  that  "  his  center  is  everywhere  and  his  circum- 
ference is  nowhere."  He  is  Lord  over  all  things.  He  is 
an  omnipresent  God: 

God  "appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
by  the  name  of  God  Almighty."  "  Power  belongeth  unto 
God."  This  scripture  contains  something  more  than  a  sol- 
emn utterance,  and  the  declaration  here  made  is  meant  as 
something  more  than  an  empty  compliment  to  the  perfec- 
tions of  the  Most  High.  However  the  mind  may  revel  in 
the  contemplation  of  sublime  sentiments,  and  however  en- 
nobling this  may  be,  there  is  something  more  than  the 
pleasures  of  sentiment  in  the  doctrine  of  divine  power.  By 
"omnipotence"  is  meant  the  power,  or  strength,  or  capacity 
to  do  all  things.  To  God  belongs  power.  He  possesses, 
though  he  may  not  exercise  it,  all  power  in  heaven  and  on 
earth.  He  possesses  power  preeminently  and  transcendent- 
ly.  Dominion  and  power,  though  both  belong  to  God,  are 
not  one  and  the  same.  Comprehension  is  not  the  sami;  as 
power,  however  it  may  be  connected  therewith  and  essen- 
tial thereto.  Authority  must  not  be  confounded  with  pow- 
er, however  it  may  spring  therefrom.  Pearson,  an  author 
usually  clear  and  logical,  has  suffered  himself  to  be  con- 
fused in  these  points,  as  he  has  treated  them  in  his  "Expo- 
sition of  the  Creed."  God  has  strength  to  do  whatever 
comes  within  the  purview  of  the  divine  will  or  purpose. 


150  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

The  exercise  of  his  omnipotence  does  not  exhaust  God  in 
any  degree.  His  power  is  not  only  irresistible,  it  is  abso- 
lute ;  it  not  only  exceeds  the  power  of  all  other  beings,  it 
is  perfect.  God  can  do  whatever  he  wills,  and  he  can  will 
whatever  is  agreeable  to  or  consistent  with  his  own  perfec- 
tions. He  cannot  work  contradictions  nor  perform  incon- 
sistencies. He  cannot  make  a  thing  to  be  and  not  to  be  at 
the  same  time.  He  cannot  make  darkness  light,  nor  light 
darkness.  He  cannot  make  wrong  right,  nor  right  wrong. 
But  it  no  more  limits  his  power  that  he  cannot  work  a  con- 
tradiction than  it  limits  his  veracity  that  he  cannot  tell  a  lie. 

Knowledge  is  a  certain  and  correct 'perception  of  what- 
ever is  a  subject  of  perception,  whether  of  things  actually 
existing  or  of  things  which  may  hereafter  exist.  Omnis- 
cience encompasses  the  actual  and  the  possible.  The  by- 
gone, the  present,  and  the  coming  events  and  things  are 
equally  and  alike  encompassed  thereby.  God  is  omniper- 
cipient  aud  omniscient.  However  it  may  be  necessary  to 
enlarge  upon  the  subject,  all  can  be  said  in  two  sentences, 
or  three  at  most.  God  knows  at  once  all  that  is  to  be 
known.  He  knows  that  Avhich  is  and  that  which  is  to  be,  or 
that  which  will  be.  His  perception  and  knowledge  are  in- 
finite. He  does  not  acquire  knowledge — it  belongs  to  him, 
is  inherent  in  him.  "Shall  any  teach  God  knowledge?" 
"For  the  Lord  is  a  God  of  knowledge."  "Who  hath  di- 
rected the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  or  being  his  counselor  hath 
taught  him  ?  With  whom  took  he  counsel,  or  who  instructed 
him,  and  taught  him  in  the  path  of  judgment,  and  taught 
him  knowledge,  and  showed  to  him  the  way  of  understand- 
ing?" "He  that  teacheth  man  knowledge  shall  not  he 
know?  The  Lord  knoweth  the  thoughts  of  man,  that  they 
are  vanity." 

God's  knowledge  reaches  unto  all  things.  Has  God  a 
knowledge  of  events  previous  to  their  occurrence,  and  of 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  151 

things  previous  to  their  existence?  Has  he  a  previous 
knowledge  of  contingent  events?  God's  prescience  is  as 
clearly  taught  and  as  conclusively  demonstrated,  by  the 
Scriptures  and  by  the  divine  administration,  as  is  his 
omniscience.  "  Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world."  It  has  been  said  by  some  divines 
that  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  know  any  thing  about  contin- 
gent events  in  advance  of  their  occurrence;  that  the  pre- 
science of  an  event  would  destroy  its  contingency,  and  that 
the  prescience  of  an  act  would  destroy  the  freedom  of  the 
one  who  performs  the  act.  These  are  mere  assumptions,  dif- 
ficulties only  in  imagination.  Prescience  has  no  more  to  do 
in  causing  or  preventing  an  event,  or  in  forcing  or  restrain- 
ing the  will  of  a  moral  agent,  than  do  the  tides  of  the  ocean. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  God  has  foreknown  and  fore- 
told, many  years  in  advance,  very  many  events  which  subse- 
quently occurred— events  too  which,  previous  to  their  oc- 
currence, were  as  contingent  as  ever  were  any  events.  God 
has  foreknown  and  foretold  many  deeds  which  were  subse- 
quently performed  by  free,  unrestrained,  and  responsible 
agents.  The  Bible  gives  account  of  many  such  events  and 
many  such  deeds.  There  can  therefore  be  no  real  contra- 
diction and  no  real  difficulty  in  the  case.  It  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  events  and  acts  can  be  foreknown  and  foretold, 
with  exactness  and  in  detail,  and  at  the  same  time  be  con- 
tingent and  free — contingent  and  free  in  all  that  pertains  to 
contingency  and  freedom  in  occurrences  and  performances; 
or  it  must  be  admitted,  on  the  other  hand,  that  many  of  the 
most  important  events  in  the  history  of  nations  have  not 
been  contingent,  and  that  many  of  the  most  important  ac- 
tions of  men  have  not  been  the  actions  of  free  agents.  The 
admission  that  many  important  events  have  not  been  con- 
tingent, and  many  important  actions  of  men  have  not  been 
the  actions  of  free  agents,  will  hardly  be  made  by  any  con- 


152  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

sistent  Arminian  or  by  any  sound  theologian.  All  the  acts 
of  a  moral  agent  are  acts  freely  committed,  and  all  events 
dependent  upon  the  acts  of  moral  agents  are  contingent. 
The  acts  are  freely  committed  in  that  the  agents  are  free  to 
commit  them  or  not  as  they  choose.  The  events  are  con- 
tingent in  that  they  may  or  may  not  be  as  they  are.  The 
two  things  "prescience"  and  "contingency"  coexist;  the 
two  things  "prescience"  and  "liberty  of  action"  coexist. 
This  is  true,  the  insurmountable  objections  conjured  up  by 
theologians  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Before  closing  what  is  to  be  said  on  the  "omniscience  of 
God,"  it  is  preeminently  proper  to  present  and  investigate 
some  cases  in  which  the  divine  prescience,  contingency  of 
event,  and  human  freedom  conjoin.  The  betrayal  of  Jesus 
Christ  by  Judas  Iscariot  is  a  case  suitable  to  the  purpose  in 
hand.  About  a  thousand  years  before  Jesus  was  born,  Da- 
vid, inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  uttered  the  following  sen- 
tences: "Yea,  mine  own  familiar  friend,  in  whom  I  trusted, 
which  did  eat  of  my  bread,  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against 
me;"  "Let  his  days  be  few,  and  let  another  take  his  of- 
fice." This  is  a  specific  prophecy,  giving  a  specific  account 
of  the  betrayal  of  Christ  by  Judas.  That  this  is  so  Jesus 
and  Peter  have  both  testified.  Jesus,  when  setting  forth 
the  treachery  of  Judas,  said :  "  I  speak  not  of  you  all :  I 
know  whom  I  have  chosen ;  but  that  the  Scripture  may  be 
fulfilled,  He  that  eateth  bread  with  me  hath  lifted  up  his 
heel  against  me."  Peter,  as  reported  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  says:  "Men  and  brethren,  this  Scripture  must 
needs  have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the 
mouth  of  David,  spake  before  concerning  Judas,  which  was 

guide  to  them  that  took  Jesus For  it  is  written  in 

the  book  of  Psalms,  Let  his  habitation  be  desolate,  and  let 
no  man  dwell  therein;  and  his  bishopric  let  another  take." 
Here  is  inspired  and  divine  application  of  these  prophecies 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  153 

to  the  betrayal  of  Jesus  by  Judas.  The  life  and  and  entire 
career  of  Judas  is  foretold  in  minutest  detail.  These  proph- 
ecies set  forth  every  thing  about  him — his  intimacy  with 
Christ,  his  apostleship,  his  hypocrisy,  his  treachery,  his  con- 
fession, his  remorse,  his  presentation  of  the  bribe  to  those 
from  whom  he  received  it,  his  despair,  his  infamy,  and  the 
vacation  and  filling  of  his  apostolic  office.  His  case  ful- 
fills every  item. 

This  transaction  of  Judas  was  foreknown  and  foretold ; 
Avas  recorded  as  prophecy  .away  back  in  prophetic  times, 
and  yet  Judas  did  the  thing  most  freely  and  voluntarily. 
He  acted  without  any  extraneous  force,  compulsion,  or  ne- 
cessity. So  unrestrained  and  free  was  Judas  that  he  was 
responsible  for  his  action  in  the  premises,  and  by  the  same 
brought  guilt  and  woe  upon  himself.  "  He  that  dippeth  his 
hand  with  me  in  the  dish,  the  same  shall  betray  me.  The 
Sou  of  man  goeth  as  it  is  written  of  him ;  but  woe  unto  that 
man  by  whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed !  It  had  been  good 
for  that  man  had  he  not  been  born."  This  is  Christ's  es- 
timate of  this  man's  act,  and  his  authoritative  announcement 
of  the  measure  of  his  guilt  and  the  eternal  penalty  attached 
thereto. 

That  divine  prescience,  contingency  of  event,  and  human 
freedom  can  and  do  coexist  can  no  more  be  denied  than 
can  be  denied  the  divinity  and  miracles  of  Jesus  Christ. 
A  foreknown  event  is  no  more  a  necessary  event  than  it 
would  be  were  it  unknown.  Antecedent  knowledge  no  more 
necessitates  and  no  more  influences  and  forces  an  action 
than  posterior  knowledge. 

Another  case  to  which  reference  may  be  made  in  this  con- 
nection is  that  of  Peter  in  the  denial  of  his  Lord  in  the  hour 
of  his  arrest.  Jesus  told  Peter  several  hours  in  advance  of 
the  transaction,  in  perspicuous  language,  and  in  an  earnest 
and  sorrowful  tone,  what  he  (Peter)  would  do  and  the  par- 


154  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

ticulars  attending  the  act.  "Jesus  said  unto  him,  Verily 
I  say  unto  thee,  That  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow,  thou 
shalt  deny  me  thrice."  Peter  was  so  far  from  believing  that 
he  would  do  this — it  was  so  abhorrent  to  his  feelings,  it  was 
so  incongruous  with  his  faith  and  courage,  it  was  so  antago- 
nistic to  every  element  of  his  character — that,  though  Christ 
asserted  to  him  that  he  would  commit  this  deed,  he  emphat- 
ically, most  vehemently,  yet  lovingly,  repelled  the  announce- 
ment. "Peter  said  unto  him,  Though  I  should  die  with 
thee,  yet  will  I  not  deny  thee." 

Here  was  a  transaction  foretold  with  minutest  particular- 
ity by  the  Son  of  God.  Here  was  prescience,  here  was  pos- 
itive foreknowledge  of  futurity ;  and  yet  Peter  was  positively 
free  in  the"  whole  transaction.  Peter  knew  that  he  acted 
freely,  and  without  any  restraint  or  necessity  which  de- 
stroyed his  responsibility  in  the  case,  without  any  restraint 
or  necessity  whatever,  and,  consequently,  that  he  was  verily 
guilty  of  a  grievous  sin ;  "  and  he  went  out  and  wept  bitter- 
ly" when  he  reflected  on  the  deed.  He  wept  on  account  of 
this  deed,  and  repented  of  it,  which  he  could  not  have  done 
had  he  been  forced  to  the  act.  This  case,  as  it  stands  in  the 
record,  is  free  from  all  subtlety,  and  no  ingenious  argument, 
nor  fanciful  speculation,  nor  even  abstruse  reasoning,  can 
serve  to  disguise  the  plain  truth  herein  contained.  This 
case  cannot  be  made  to  serve  the  exigences,  nor  to  support 
the  pernicious  fancies  of  those  who  attempt  to  demolish  the 
sublime  doctrine  of  the  divine  prescience. 

If  it  is  desirable  to  keep  up  a  conscientious  regard  for 
divine  revelation,  and  a  rational  veneration  of  divine  wor- 
ship; if  it  is  desirable  to  deepen  the  piety,  and  inflame  the 
zeal,  and  intensify  the  integrity  of  Christians,  then  it  is  im- 
portant to  give  unreserved  credence  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  prescience,  and  maintain  this  doctrine  uncorrupted. 

God  is  holy.     It  has  boen  said — and  the  profoundest  im- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  155 


portance  has  been  attached  to  this — that  holiness  is  right  ac- 
tion, and  that  there  can  be  no  holiness  prior  to  and  without 
an  act.  Various  terms  have  been  used  in  asserting  this 
theory :  such  as  that  the  true  nature  of  holiness  is  found  in 
acts  of  the  will,  and  in  practical  habits  of  the  will ;  that 
holiness  consists  in  personal  acting  and  doing;  that  all  moral 
goodness  consists  in  acts  of  the  will,  and  in  the  habits  formed 
by  the  repetition  of  such  acts;  that  righteousness  is  right 
action ;  that  holiness  consists  not  in  the  right  state  of  the 
powers  with  which  the  being  is  endowed,  but  in  the  right  ex- 
ercise- of  those  powers.  Those  holding  this  theory  and  using 
these  definitions  have  said  "  that  the  highest  excellency  of 
God  himself  is  right  action."  Upon  the  basis  of  this  theory  it 
is  asserted  that  God  himself  could  not  be  holy  until  he  acted, 
until  he  performed  right  actions.  It  is  also  asserted  in  this 
connection  that  God  could  not  create  a  holy  being,  and  that 
the  doctrine  which  teaches  that  righteousness,  or  holiness, 
was  concreated  with  Adam,  or  wrought  into  his  nature,  is 
without  foundation,  and  involves  absurdities  and  contradic- 
tions. The  basis  and  the  culmination  of  all  this  are  in  the 
definition,  "  Holiness  is  right  action."  Dr.  John  Taylor,  of 
Norwich,  England,  and  Dr.  Albert  T.  Bledsoe,  of  America, 
and  all  other  Arians  and  Pelagians,  hold  and  defend  these 
points  and  definitions  herein  given.  Graver  errors  and 
greater  fallacies  could  scarcely  be  found  in  all  the  range  of 
heresy.  These  are  parts  of  a  system  which  antagonizes 
every  vital  doctrine  of  Christianity,  and  falsifies  the  char- 
acter and  nature  of  God  himself. 

That  is  a  most  grievous  error  which  makes  holiness  synon- 
ymous with  choice  and  synonymous  with  obedience,  and 
which  makes  love  and  obedience  the  same.  Love  and  obe- 
dience are  not  the  same.  Obedience  is  the  result,  or  fruit, 
of  love,  and  the  evidence  of  its  existence.  Holiness  is  not 
synonymous  with  choice,  and  is  not  synonymous  with  obe- 


156  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

dience.  Obedience  is  one  thing,  and  holiness  is  another.  A 
being  may  be  holy  before  he  has  willed  or  acted.  The 
choice  of  holiness  comes  of  holy  principles,  and  holy  acts 
come  of  holy  principles,  and  may  be  an  evidence  of  their 
existence.  That  is  equally  fallacious  which  asserts  that 
holiness  cannot  be  concreated  with  a  moral  creature.  A 
necessitated  volition  is  impossible,  and  such  a  thing  involves 
a  contradiction,  but  a  concreated  holiness  and  a  virtuous 
nature  are  possible,  and  are  realities.  A  being  is  holy  if  he 
is  holy,  and  a  being  may  be  declared  holy  on  account  of 
moral  goodness  inherent  in  him,  and  admired  and  approved 
for  it,  even  though  it  was  concreated  with  him.  Praise  and 
'approval  are  not  virtue,  but  virtue  merits  approval,  how- 
ever attained,  or  from  whatever  source  derived. 

Holiness  is  immaculateness.  Holiness  is  a  quality,  a 
state,  and  not  an  act.  Holiness  is  a  moral  quality  belong- 
ing to  moral  beings,  just  as  hardness  is  a  quality  belonging 
to  material  bodies.  Primarily  holiness  is  in  no  way  depend- 
ent on  choice,  action,  or  habit.  Holiness  is  native  to  all 
moral  beings  in  their  pristine  state,  and  is  precedent- to  all 
action.  Holiness  is  not  an  act,  though  actions  may  pro- 
mote or  destroy  holiness  according  as  these  actions  are  holy 
or  vicious.  Actions  may  be  holy;  and  they  are  holy  or 
vicious  as  they  conform  to  or  antagonize  the  divine  law 
given  as  a  rule  for  moral  conduct.  It  is  also  true  that  holi- 
ness is  a  quality  which  is  attainable,  in  the  case  of  fallen 
man,  under  the  dispensations  of  grace;  but,  however  holi- 
ness has  been  attained,  whether  by  the  original  constitution 
with  which  the  being  was  endowed,  or  by  the  provisions  and 
dispensations  of  grace,  it  is  a  quality  and  a  state,  and  not  an 
act,  whenever  and  wherever  existing.  Justice  and  truth 
are  no  more  elements  of  holiness  than  they  are  elements  of 
goodness  and  mercy,  and  they  no  more  constitute  holiness 
than  they  constitute  goodness  and  mercy. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  157 

How  is  God  related  to  holiness?  Holiness  is  a  quality  of 
his  very  being.  Holiness  is  an  absolute  quality  in  God.  It 
pertains  to  him  as  absolutely  as  does  his  essence,  or  being, 
and  is  as  much  underived  as  is  his  essence,  or  being.  Holi- 
ness is  predicated  of  the  Almighty.  He  himself  claims  to 
be  holy,  and  his  inspired  prophets  ascribe  holiness  to  him. 

The  Lord  said  to  Moses:  "  Speak  unto  all  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  Ye  shall 
be  holy,  for  I,  the  Lord  your  God,  am  holy."  To  Isaiah 
he  said :  "  For  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  thy  Saviour."  Habakkuk,  with  the  theme  of  inspira- 
tion oil  his  lips,  said  of  the  Lord :  "  Thou  art  of  purer 
eyes  than  to  behold  evil,  and  canst  not  look  on  iniquity." 
As  Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel  sung  their  song  of  tri- 
umph, they  said  unto  God:  "Who  is  like  unto  thee,  O 
Lord,  among  the  gods?  who  is  like  thee  glorious  in  holi- 
ness, fearful  in  praises,  doing  wonders?"  The  psalmist,  in 
the  majesty  of  his  strains,  sings:  "  Exalt  the  Lord  our  God, 
and  worship  at  his  holy  hill ;  for  the  Lord  our  God  is  holy." 
The  climax  in  the  ascription  of  priaise  is  reached  in  the 
ceaseless  song :  "  Holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord*  God  Almighty, 
which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come." 

Justice  is  inherent  in  God.  "  Great  and  marvelous  are 
thy  works,  Lord  God  Almighty;  just  and  true  are  thy  ways, 
thou  King  of  saints."  This  is  an  encomium,  but  it  is  a  de- 
scription of  and  an  encomium  upon  the  works  of  God, 
rather  than  of  God  himself.  God  is  just  in  all  his  doings, 
and  true  in  all  his  dispensations,  but  prior  to  and  independ- 
ent of  all  this,  justice  is  a  quality  of  his  own  being.  Moses 
sets  this  forth  in  his  inimitable  song,  in  which  he  exclaims: 
"A  God  of  truth,  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  right  is  he ! " 
God  is  so  compact,  complete,  straight,  exact,  as  to  be  the 
embodiment,  model,  and  standard  of  equity  and  justice. 
The  idea,  law,  and  rule  of  justice  originate  in  and  emanate 


158  TJie  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

from  God.  Scales  balanced  in  the  hands  of  some  blind  god- 
dess are  a  feeble  presentation  and  a  sorry  representation 
of  justice.  God  with  his  perfections  compacting  the  com- 
pleteness of  his  own  being  embodies  the  idea  and  the  qual- 
ity called  justice.  Whatever  may  be  the  exercise  or  mani- 
festation of  justice  in  the  dealings  of  men  one  with  another, 
and  in  the  administration  of  law  in  the  government  of  peo- 
ples, all  finds  its  beauty  and  completeness  in  God. 

Justice,  as  it  is  inherent  in  God,  is  that  in  which  all  ranks 
and  orders  of  moral  beings  have  embodied  for  them  exact 
rectitude.  Justice,  as  it  is  inherent  in  God,  is  that  quality 
and  law  by  which  all  actions,  throughout  the  domain  of 
moral  existence,  are  to  be  regulated.  This  embodiment  of 
justice  sums  all  that  can  be  estimated  in  the  conceptions  of 
moral  excellence.  Addition  and  diminution  are  foreign  to 
justice.  It  is  exact,  square,  straight,  without  deviation  or 
variation.  The  miscreant  given  to  sensuality  and  debauch- 
ery, to  avarice  and  rapacity,  to  oppression  and  violence, 
and  to  feuds  and  frauds,  perverting  his  own  functions,  and 
losing  himself  in  his  own  fluctuations  and  obloquy,  knows 
nothing  of  the  beauty  of  justice,  and  nothing  of  the  tran- 
quillity and  happiness  which  exist  where  justice  reigns;  to 
the  bliss  of  felt  gratitude,  and  to  the  sweets  of  living  joy, 
and  of  inspiring  hope,  he  is  an  entire  stranger;  beatific 
visions  never  greet  his  gaze;  no  swelling  tide  of  rapture 
wafts  him  to  brighter  scenes,  and  to  better  days.  He  whose 
character  and  conduct  quadrate  with  justice  has  a  quality 
and  a  virtue  which  make  him  so  far  forth  akin  to  God. 

Justice  and  sin  are  antagonistic,  and  irreconcilable.  In 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  conflict  ensues  upon  the  en- 
trance of  sin,  and  the  contest  is  eternal.  Justice  is  as  much 
concerned  in  suppressing  and  punishing  sin  as  it  is  in  main- 
taining its  own  existence,  and  is  as  pertinacious  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other.  Justice,  with  its  inalienable  preroga- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  lf>9 

tives,  can  no  more  cease  its  controversy  with  sin,  and  can 
no  more  withhold  its  strokes  of  punishment  upon  sin,  than 
it  can  become  its  own  antagonist,  or  than  it  can  terminate 
its  own  existence.  Justice  is  vested  with  immortality  and 
supremacy.  Sin  is  repugnant  and  execrable.  To  connive 
at  sin,  and  to  fail  to  anathematize  it,  is  to  fail  to  vindicate 
justice. 

The  goodness  of  God  is  so  clearly  manifest,  and  so  exten- 
sively recognized,  that  he  has  been  called  "The  Good  One." 
It  is  not,  however,  true  that  "god"  and  "good"  are  words  of 
the  same  import.  These  words  are  not  synonymous.  The 
word  "good "  is  applied  to  the  Divine  Being  as  expressive  of 
one  of  his  qualities,  or  designative  of  one  of  his  attributes. 
The  word  "god"  is  applied  to  him  as  his  name,  and  desigua- 
tive  of  his  being  and  nature  in  the  entireness  thereof,  as 
the  Supreme  Being,  holding  dominion  over  all  things. 
Goodness  is  a  moral  quality  as  it  is  ascribed  to  God,  and  is 
descriptive  of  a  benevolent  nature,  a  virtue  that  moves  in 
conferring  benefit  and  happiness. 

In  the  realm  of  being  there  is  nothing  more  admirable 
than  that  moral  quality  called  goodness. .  Against  this 
quality  there  is  no  law;  it  is  subject  to  no  condemnation, 
though  perverted  views  are  entertained  as  to  what  it  is,  and 
with  what  it  is  consistent.  Selfishness  itself  is  approved 
and  defended  by  those  who  would,  nevertheless,  abstractly 
commend  benevolence.  Benevolence  and  sin  collide,  and 
with  these  there  can  be  no  alliance.  Benevolence  protests 
against  sin,  and  ever  condemns  it.  Goodness  is  not  an  in- 
discriminating  something,  blind  to  the  distinctions  of  right 
nnd  wrong;  and  while  it  exists  happiness  can  never  accrue 
to  moral  delinquency.  God  is  good.  He  is  essentially  be- 
nevolent. It  is  said,  by  some,  that  if  God  is  a  benevolent 
being,  and  a  wise  and  omnipotent  sovereign,  he  should  not, 
and  could  not,  permit  a  state  of  things  productive  of  dis- 


160  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

content  and  misery.  Those  holding  this  view  conclude  that 
as  there 'is  misery  God  is  not  good.  But  the  existence  of 
sin  and  suffering  no  more  justifies  the  inference  that  God  is 
not  good  than  it  justifies  the  inference  that  he  is  not  omnipo- 
tent ;  no  more  justifies  the  inference  that  he  is  not  good  than 
it  justifies  the  inference  that  he  does  not  exist.  It  is  use- 
less to  urge  captious  and  groundless  objections  to  the  char- 
acter of  God.  He  is  not  a  selfish  and  malignant  being.  He 
gives  no  sanctions  to  vice,  and  renders  no  assistance  to  agen- 
cies which  are  productive  only  of  misery.  God,  m  his  good- 
ness, cannot  approve  of  the  detestable  passions  which  rankle 
in  the  natures  of  moral  delinquents,  or  the  dissolute  habits 
in  which  they  indulge.  Hence,  he  punishes  sin.  Sin  and 
misery  are  inseparable,  and  so  are  pain  and  punishment. 
Suffering  is  inflicted  as  a  retribution.  Neither  astuteness 
nor  acuteness  can  refute  this  truth.  Adversity  and  afflic- 
tions may  be  administered  as  correctives,  and,  under  correct- 
ive dispensations,  may  lead  to  reformation,  and  may  nour- 
ish virtue,  but  the  demand  for  reformation  and  the  produc- 
tion of  virtue  is  found  in  the  existence  of  sin,  and  so  are 
these  afflictions  and  sufferings.  It  is  true  that  justice  can 
demand  nothing  that  is  inconsistent  with  goodness,  but  sin 
is  inconsistent  with  goodness  as  well  as  with  justice,  and 
must  be  condemned  by  goodness  no  less  than  by  justice. 

Reconciling  the  goodness  of  God  with  existing  misery 
pushes  back  to  another  question — namely,  the  origin  and  ex- 
istence of  sin.  How  can  God  be  God,  and  sin  exist?  This 
is  the  question  to  be  answered.  When  this  is  properly  an- 
swered, the  question  of  reconciling  existing  misery  with 
the  divine  goodness  will  disappear.  God  can  be  God,  and 
at  the  same  time  sin  exist.  This  is  true;  otherwise  it 
must  be  denied  either  that  God  exists  or  that  there  is 
sin.  If  God  exists  at  all,  he  is  omnipotent,  wise,  and  good. 
How  does  sin  exist  in  the  dominions  of  a  wise,  benevolent, 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  1G1 

and  omnipotent  Sovereign  ?  Sin  impinges  God's  being  and 
law,  and  consequently,  can  never  be  essential  to  him  nor 
any  of  his  purposes.  No  profit  can  ever  accrue  to  God,  or 
to  others,  through,  by,  or  from  sin.  No  good  can  ever,  in 
any  form,  come  of  sin.  God  may,  in  the  midst  of  moral 
waste  and  wreck,  build  up  good,  but  the  good  would  have 
been  complete  without  the  waste  and  wreck.  The  waste 
and  wreck  are  not  necessary  to  the  completion  or  manifesta- 
tion of  any  thing  divine. 

In  formulating  a  creed  on  the  origin  and  existence  of  sin, 
a  field  of  boundless  dimensions  has  been  explored;  in  the 
meantime,  a  variety  of  theories  on  the  subject  have  been  in- 
vented. Many  minds  have  imperfectly  apprehended  the 
subject,  as  can  be  seen  by  the  fallacious  arguments  they 
have  adduced,  and  the  uncertain  speculations  which  they 
have  indulged.  The  researches  made  demonstrate  that  it  is 
useless  to  range  the  fields  of  science  and  philosophy  for  an 
adequate  understanding  of  the  subject  and  a  satisfactory 
solution  of  the  questions  pertaining  thereto.  The  whole  so- 
lution must  be  made  within  certain  limits.  The  question, 
Whence  did  sin  originate  ?  can  be  answered  only  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  Scriptures.  The  disputations  of  sages  and  phi- 
losophers are  worth  nothing  in  settling  this  question.  A 
satisfactory  dogma  and  a  settled  faith  may  be  secured  by 
adhering  to  the  divine  record.  Philosophy  must  yield  to 
the  Bible,  and  superstition  must  yield  to  faith. 

All  other  theories  being  irreconcilable  with  each  other, 
and  false  in  themselves,  are  refuted  by  the  establishment  of 
the  following  theory — the  theory  taught  in  the  Scriptures, 
namely,  that  by  the  old  serpent  called  the  devil,  and  Satan, 
and  by  the  first  man,  Adam,  sin  entered  into  the  world. 
These,  the  devil  and  Adam — moral  agents  that  they  were, 
in  the  exercise  of  their  own  natural  endowments — trans- 
gressed God's  law,  and  thus  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 
11 


1G2  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

woe  followed.  God  could  make  moral  agents,  and  he  did. 
As  he  made  these  they  were  capable  of  doing  whatsoever 
they  might  choose.  Moral  agency  is  the  highest  endowment 
of  the  noblest  and  most  exalted  beings  which  God  has  made, 
and  is  conducive  to  the  very  best. ends  of  the  divine  benev- 
olence, though  its  existence  involved,  under  certain  condi- 
tions, the  liability  to  sin,  and  eventuated  therein.  In 
making  and  putting  moral  beings  under  law,  God  did  not 
ordain  the  existence  of  sin  nor  give  his  sanction  to  its  per- 
petration. He,  in  advance,  forbade  it,  and  warned  against 
its  liabilities  and  dangers,  and  was  prompt  in  condemning 
it,  and  punishing  for  it,  when  it  entered.  Here  distinctions 
and  subtleties  serve  rather  to  confuse  than  adorn  the  subject, 
and  they  serve  to  strip  God  of  those  excellences  inherently 
belonging  to  him.  Sin  has  never  conduced  to  the  happiness 
of  a  single  being,  and  has  never  added  any  thing  to  the  man- 
ifestations of  God's  perfections  or  glory. 

The  introduction  of  sin  and  suffering  is  accounted  for  on 
the  basis  of  moral  agency.  No  theory  of  fatalism,  nor 
theory  of  antagonistic  decrees  on  the  part  of  God,  nor  theory 
of  weakness  in  the  world  of  matter,  nor  theory  of  an  origi- 
nal evil  being,  can  give  the  proper  solution  of  the  subject. 
God  did  not  allow  or  permit  sin  to  exist  de  jure.  When  it 
entered  he  recognized  it  de  facto.  Sin  exists  beyond  all 
question.  But,  to  repeat  what  has  already  been  said,  God 
never  sanctioned  sin.  He  never  gave  any  license  to  the 
perpetration  of  an  evil  act.  He  never  authorized  the  trans- 
gression of  his  own  law.  He  permitted  moral  agents,  which 
he  made,  to  be  moral  agents.  A  lawful  provision  to  violate 
law  is  a  contradiction  and  an  absurdity.  -God  never  legis- 
lates against  himself,  and  never  makes  a  law  antagonistic 
to  his  will.  And  as  God  never  sanctioned  or  approved  sin, 
so  he  never  made  the  world  to  suffer  and  be  miserable.  He 
provided  in  the  origin  of  his  works,  for  life,  immortality, 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  163 

and  happiness;  and  when  sin  entered  his  dominions,  he, 
still  pursuing  the  purpose  for  life,  immortality,  and  happi- 
ness, brought  in  a  dispensation  of  grace — not  a  license  to  sin, 
but  a  method  of  rescue  from  sin.  A  righteous  ruler  may 
provide  for  the  suppression  of  a  rebellion  in  his  dominions, 
and  for  relieving  his  government  of  the  evils  existing  there- 
from; and  he  may  do  this  without  in  any  way  approving  of 
the  rebellion,  and  without  in  any  way  finding  pleasure  in 
the  misery  ensuing;  but  no  ruler  can  inaugurate  a  rebellion 
against  the  government  he  administers  and  perpetuates,  nor 
provide  such  as  a  part  of  his  administration.  A  good  ruler, 
in  all  benevolence,  may  inflict  judgment  and  punishment  in 
the  suppression  of  sin  in  his  dominions,  and  for  the  punish- 
ment of  the  guilty  therein. 

Sin  and  misery  are  everywhere.  At  best,  the  present  es- 
tate of  man  is  a  mixture  of  good  and  evil,  of  pleasure  and 
pain.  If  there  are  salubrious  climates  and  fertile  soils, 
giving  delight  and  producing  plenty,  there  are  also  dry 
sands  and  barren  wastes,  where  desolation  reigns.  If  there 
are  spicy,  invigorating  breezes,  and  sweet  fountains,  there 
are  also  simooms,  suffocating  Avinds,  bitter  springs,  and  de- 
structive cyclones.  If  there  is,  here  and  there,  a  moral 
oasis,  there  are  also  moral  wastes  as  wide  as  continents. 
Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  and  this  trans- 
gression originated  with  moral  and  responsible  creatures — 
creatures  placed  under  law  and  made  amenable  thereto; 
and  through  sin,  thus  originating,  came  death  and  all  suf- 
fering. Sin  brought  in  penalty.  This  is  the  sum  of  the 
whole  matter,  and  here  the  revelation  concentrates  and 
terminates. 

"  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else.  I  form  the  light 
and  create  darkness;  I  make  peace  and  create  evil;  I,  the 
Lord,  do  all  these  things."  (Isa.  xlv.  6,  7.)  This  passage 
from  the  Scriptures  has  been  relied  on  by  many  to  prove 


164  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  Selecting  this  text  from  the 
Bible  as  the  basis  of  one  of  his  sermons,  Dr.  Henry  AV. 
Bellows,  of  New  York,  proceeds  to  say:  "The  prophets 
and  apostles  were  much  bolder  in  their  assertions  than  their 
degenerate  followers  dare  to  be.  The  evil  that  is  in  the 
world  they  ascribe,  without  hesitation,  not  to  the  perversion 
which  the  divine  order  has  received  from  man,  but  to  the 
position  and  direct  creation  of  God,  whom  they  represent, 
in  the  text,  as  saying,  '  I  make  peace  and  create  evil.' 
.  .  .  I  know  no  indignity  that  can  be  put  upon  God 
greater  than  the  supposition  that  the  first  human  creature 
he  made  had  power  to  thwart  and  defy  his  omnipotence,  to 
change  the  whole  plan  and  history,  and  to  introduce  into 
the  world  and  the  universe  an  element  not  desired,  nor  ex- 
pected, nor  controllable  by  him,  called  sin;  the  frightful  cause 
of  his  eternal  displeasure  toward  millions  of  his  unborn 
creatures.  Sin  is,  by  the  foreknowledge  and  permission — in 
plainer  language,  by  the  will — of  God,  a  characteristic 
element  in  the  schooling  of  human  nature."  ("  Restatements 
of  Christian  Doctrine,"  pp.  241,  247,  248.) 

This  interpretation  of  the  above  text,  if  interpretation  it 
can  be  called,  is  given  by  Dr.  Bellows  in  support  of  a  theory, 
and  is  consonant  to  the  theory  which  rejects  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  every 
other  evangelical  doctrine  set  forth  in  the  Bible  and  in  or- 
thodox creeds.  Dr.  Bellows,  Unitarian  that  he  is,  is  not 
even  a  degenerate  follower  of  the  prophets  and  apostles, 
though  he  is  sufficiently  bold  and  rash  in  asserting  that  God 
is  the  author  or  creator  of  sin.  The  prophets  and  apostles 
were  not  rash  men,  who  uttered  bold  and  rash  words  suited 
only  to  a  bold  and  rash  age.  They  were  inspired  men,  who 
spoke  in  God's  name  and  by  God's  authority.  They  used 
sound  speech,  which  cannot  be  condemned — true  words, 
suited  to  all  times.  It  is  a  bold  and  rash  act  to  assume  to 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  1 65 

speak  now  with  the  authority  of  inspired  prophets  and 
apostles,  and  it  is  equally  bold  to  attribute  to  them  that 
which  they  never  said.  Verily,  reason  "refuses  her  assent" 
to  the  assertion  that  God,  a  good  and  holy  being,  created 
sin.  The  prophets  and  apostles  never  said  this,  nor  any 
thing  akin  to  it.  God  is  the  Sovereign  of  all  things,  and 
holds  his  throne,  and  asserts  his  sovereignty,  and  adminis- 
ters law  in  all  his  dominions.  God  has  not  withdrawn  his 
presence  from  any  place,  nor  resigned  his  dominion  any- 
where. One  God,  he  is  in  all  places,  and  he  is  everywhere 
the  same.  He  makes  and  rules  the  light  and  the  darkness, 
and  his  dominion  extends  alike  to  all  things  and  to  all  places. 
He  asserts  his  authority  and  enforces  his  law,  even  when 
rebels  against  his  government  hold  carnival.  Here,  in  the 
text  under  consideration,  peace  and  evil  are  put  in  antithesis, 
just  as  light  and  darkness  are  put  in  antithesis.  It  is  not  said 
that  God  creates  sin,  but  it  is  said  that  he  creates  evil.  He 
creates  evil  for  the  punishment  of  sin.  God  maintains  his  ju- 
risdiction, and  in  judicial  visitation  he  instigates  wars,  sends 
plague  and  pestilence,  fire  and  famine.  He  visits  these  and 
other  evils  upon  the  wicked  inhabitants  of  the  earth  as 
punishments  for  sin  and  as  demonstrations  of  his  wrath  upon 
sinners.  He  does  not  institute  sin,  but  punishes  it.  This 
is  the  thought  expressed  by  the  Almighty  when  he  says,  "  I 
create  evil."  Majesty  and  power,  grandeur  and  glory,  are 
ascribed  to  God,  the  exhibition  of  which  might  produce  in 
his  creatures  dismay;  and  with  equal  fullness  goodness  is 
ascribed  to  him  by  the  inspired  revelation :  "  The  Lord  is 
good." 

A  thousand  oracles  attest  that  the  infinite  "  God  is  true," 
and  that  immutable  as  he  is  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  lie. 
As  there  is  no  confusion  in  God,  and  as  in  him  there  is  no 
deviation  from  rectitude,  he  must  be  essential  truth  itself. 
"  His  truth  endureth  to  all  generations."  "  He  is  the 


106  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


Rock,  his  work  is  perfect;  for  all  his  ways  are  judgment;  a 
God  of  truth  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  right  is  he." 
(Deut.  xxxii.  4.) 

Many  books  on  theology  and  other  subjects  declare  mercy 
to  be  one  of  the  attributes  of  God,  calling  it  "  the  darling 
attribute  "  aud  "  a  distinguishing  attribute  of  the  Supreme 
Being."  Mercy  is  not  an  inherent  and  essential  element 
of  being,  or  of  character,  and  is  not  an  attribute  of  God. 
It  is  an  emanation  from  the  attributes  of  a  self-acting  be- 
ing, and  is  called  forth  by  adventitious  circumstances.  It 
springs  from  the  benevolence  and  love  of  God ;  and  its  rise 
and  exhibition  depend  on  the  existence  of  sin,  as  there  can 
be  no  demand  or  occasion  for  mercy  when  and  where  there 
is  no  sin.  Sin  is  prior  to  mercy.  Mercy  is  a  mere  exercise, 
and  is  simply  an  exhibition  of  God's  character  called  forth 
by  sinful  condition  or  state  on  the  part  of  his  creatures, 
just  as  grace  is  called  forth  by  sinful  conditions.  Mercy 
is  simply  an  exercise  of  clemency  toward  an  offender.  It 
would  be  as  correct  to  say  that  grace  and  wrath  are  attri- 
butes of  the  Almighty  as  to  say  that  mercy  is.  In  the 
meantime  God  is  merciful  and  gracious,  and  his  mercy  will 
not  be  found  lacking  so  long  as  there  is  a  sinner  in  condi- 
tion and  under  provision  to  need  mercy  and  be  benefited 
thereby. 

Creeds  now  extant  assign  to  God  invisibility  and  incom- 
prehensibility, but  nothing  is  thereby  added  to  his  excel- 
lences or  perfections.  God  is  not  invisible  nor  incompre- 
hensible absolutely  in  and  of  himself.  He  is  invisible  and 
incomprehensible  to  finite  capacities.  He  is  invisible  to 
finite  eyes  because  finite  eyes  cannot,  in  the  limit  of  their 
OAvn  imperfections,  penetrate  the  intervenings  between  them 
and  God.  He  is  incomprehensible  to  finite  minds  because 
finite  minds  are  incapable,  from  their  own  weakness,  of 
comprehending  him.  When  a  man  extols  God  as  invisible 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  167 

and  unsearchable,  he  declares  God's  greatness  and  speaks 
his  praise,  and  he  declares  the  imperfections  of  his  own 
powers  as  well. 

God  is  a  triune  being.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
and  its  recognition  is  essential  to  a  proper  Christian  theology. 
An  accurate  and  systematic  statement  of  doctrine  is  neces- 
sary to  guard  and  perpetuate  the  truth.  Nothing  must  be 
allowed  to  lead  away  from  sound  theoretical  definitions. 
This  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  must  be  adequately  and  con- 
cisely defined ;  this  the  profoundness  of  the  subject  and  the 
intricacies  involved  therein  imperatively  demand.  In  this 
triunity,  as  in  other  respects,  God  is  unlike  every  being 
and  every  thing.  There  is  nothing  with  which  God  can 
be  compared,  or  to  which  he  can  be  likened.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  universe  by  which  this  Trinity  can  be  illus- 
trated. The  effort  here  at  illustration  is  not  only  futile,  it 
is  prolific  of  error.  In  the  intricate  work  of  setting  forth 
this  profound  doctrine,  the  Scriptures  alone  must  be  relied 
on  and  appealed  to,  for  it  is  a  subject  purely  of  revelation. 
Whatever  revelation  teaches  concerning  the  same  is  to  be 
implicitly  believed,  and  further  than  the  revelation  no  one 
can  go.  To  a  finite  mind  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
mysterious,  though  it  involves  no  absurdities  and  ho  con- 
tradictions. The  mind,  when  properly  instructed,  finds  no 
difficulty  in  believing  that  which  is  mysterious,  while  no 
intelligent  person  can  believe  a  statement  which  involves  a 
contradiction.  These  truths  must  be  kept  steadily  in  mind, 
while  the  subject  now  under  consideration  is  further  pre- 
sented. 

Triunity  teaches  that  there  are  three  in  one.  The  terms 
three  and  one  are  not  the  same  in  meaning,  and  the  num- 
bers three  and  one  are  not  the  same  in  fact,  and  these  can 
never  be  made  the  same  in  any  sense.  If  the  terms  three 
and  one  meant  the  same  they  would  not  express  the  thought 


168  The  Old  and  Ike  New  Man: 

which  is  intended  to  be  conveyed  in  their  use  in  this  con- 
nection. It  is  because  they  have  a  different  sense  and  con- 
vey a  different  meaning  that  they  are  brought  into  use  on 
this  profound  theme.  The  Bible  nowhere  says,  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  Trinity  never  attempts  to  maintain, 
that  three  are  one,  and  that  one  is  three.  This  would  be 
such  a  glaring  contradiction  that  no  invention  could  con- 
ceal it,  and  no  one  could  afford  to  defend  or  tolerate  it. 
St.  John  says:  "There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heav- 
en, the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these 
three  are  one."  (1  John  v.  7.)  St.  John  here  does  not 
say  that  three  are  one,  and  that  one  is  three,  but  he  men- 
tions Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Ghost  as  three,  and  says 
these,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  one. 
In  this  there  is  no  contradiction,  and  no  absurdity.  There 
are  not  gods  many,  nor  lords  many.  A  plurality  of  gods 
is  a  theory,  a  mere  fancy,  born  of  the  superstition  which 
fosters  mythology.  There  cannot  be  more  than  one  God, 
but  there  can  be  three  persons  in  that  one  God.  There  is 
only  one  living  and  true  God,  "and  in  unity  of  this  god- 
head there  are  three  persons,  of  one  substance,  power,  and 
eternity — the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  one  in  unity,  one 
in  essence,  one  in  Godhead;  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  are  three  in  person.  These,  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost — one  in  unity,  and  the  same  in  es- 
sence, and  three  in  person — constitute  in  their  own  being  the 
triune  God.  The  Father  is  a  person,  the  Son  is  a  person, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  person ;  these,  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  though  not  separate,  are  distinct  in 
personality,  and  so  are  three  persons.  "  The  Father  is  God, 
the  Son  is  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God ;  these,  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  united  in  the  Godhead ; 
these  are  the  same  in  .essence;  they  exist  in  indissoluble 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  1(](J 

oneness,  and  so  they  are  one  God ;  and  thus  these  three  are 
one. 

This  God  of  essential  essence  and  trinity  of  persons  is 
the  one  true  and  living  God.  The  Bible  teaches  that  the 
Father  is  a  person,  that  the  Son  is  a  person,  and  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  a  person.  To  each  of  these,  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  belongs  essence,  the  constituent 
substance  of  being;  and  each  of  these,  in  a  simple,  primi- 
tive, and  true  sense,  is  a  person.  Attributes  and  offices  in- 
here in  persons,  but  when  the  Scriptures  present  and  de- 
scribe the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  not  a  per- 
sonification of  attributes  nor  a  designation  of  offices  which 
is  presented  and  described.  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son,  is  as 
truly  God  as  is  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  as  truly 
and  essentially  God  as  are  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Great 
care  must  be  had  not  to  confound  the  persons  nor  divide 
the  substance  or  essence  in  and  of  the  triune  God.  The 
triune  God  is  not  a  product  in  any  sense.  He  is  not  de- 
rived in  any  manner.  He  has  not  his  being  either  in 
essence  or  person,  by  emanation,  generation,  creation,  nor 
procession,  but  by  self-existence.  Trinality  is  of  the  very 
nature  of  God,  and  is  dependent  upon  no  process  whatso- 
ever. It  is  of  the  nature  of  God  to  be  trinal,  just  as  it  is 
of  his  nature  to  be  holy.  It  would  be  as  well  to  discuss 
the  method  and  manner  of  God's  holiness  as  it  would  be  to 
discuss  the  method  and  manner  of  his  trinity.  There  is  no 
more  manner  of  the  one  than  there  is  of  the  other.  There 
is  no  more  reason  for  attempting  to  show  how  God  is  a 
triune  God  than  there  is  for  attempting  to  show  how  he  is 
a  holy  God  or  an  omniscient  God.  His  trinity  is  just  as 
independent  of  emanation,  generation,  creation,  and  proces- 
sion, as  is  his  holiness.  No  theory  can  be  maintained,  in 
harmony  with  the  truth,  which  has  for  its  basis  the  idea 
that  Deity  has  reached  by  development  a  state  of  being 


1 70  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

which  previously  did  not  pertain  thereto.  God  has  ever 
existed  just  as  he  is.  He  has  existed  one  God  from  eter- 
nity in  the  three  persons  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

The  relation  to  each  other  of  the  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead  is  a  subject  demanding  thorough  investigation. 
The  basis  has  been  laid  for  it  in  the  preceding  paragraphs. 
As  a  proper  perception  of  God  is  conducive  to  the  greatest 
happiness,  a  perfect  knowledge  of  him  is  a  most  desirable 
attainment.  Streams  of  light  flowing  in  upon  the  mind 
from  the  divine  fountain,  whose  fullness  is  inexhaustible,  fill 
the  soul  with  joy  ineffable  and  infinite.  Many  questions 
have  been  attached  to  this  subject  of  the  relation  of  the 
divine  persons  to  each  other  in  such  a  way  that  they  can- 
not be  ignored,  though  in  themselves  they  are  not  entitled 
to  any  consideration.  The  points  involved  in  this  subject 
have  been  thrown  into  such  attitudes,  by  the  controversies 
which  have  arisen  concerning  the  same,  as  to  greatly  com- 
plicate them.  The  theories  known  as  Sabellianism  and 
Arianism  have  given  rise  to  much  of  the  phraseology  used 
in  discussing  the  origin  and  relation  of  the  persons  in  the 
Godhead.  There  is  no  occasion  for  innovations  in  the  the- 
ory long  held  by  the  evangelical  creed  concerning  the  trin- 
ity in  unity,  but  this  theory  can  and  must  be  relieved  of 
the  phraseology  which  has  hitherto  embarrassed  it,  as  well 
as  some  of  the  opinions  connected  with  that  phraseology. 
In  discussing  this  abstruse  and  sublime  theme  precise  and 
unambiguous  terms  must  be  sought  rather  than  the  display 
of  rhetorical  fancies. 

Sabellianism,  which  asserted  that  there  is  only  one  person 
in  the  Godhead,  that  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  but 
different  manifestations  of  the  one  God  the  Father,  perform- 
ing different  offices  of  the  one  God,  is  most  emphatically 
repudiated  here  as"  both  unreasonable  and  unscriptural. 
Arianism,  which  asserted  that  the  Son  is  not  divine,  but 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  171 

.only  a  creature,  and  denied  the  divinity  and  personality  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  here  repudiated  as  rank  and  pernicious 
heresy.  The  evangelical  doctrine  that  in  the  Godhead 
"there  are  three  persons  of  one  substance,  power,  and  eter- 
nity— the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  here  ac- 
cepted without  any  reservation,  and  shall  be  defended,  as 
has  already  been  done,  with  the  best  ability  possessed. 

How  did  the  Son  derive  his  being?  This  was  the  ques- 
tion before  the  Council  of  Nice,  which  was  held  in  the  year 
A.D.  325.  The  answer  to  this  question  depends  upon  the 
view  taken  of  the  nature  of  Jesus,  the  Son.  The  celebrated 
council  divided  into  two  parties  on  this  question.  The 
party  which  contended  that  Jesus,  the  Son,  was  not  God, 
insisted  that  he  was  created.  The  party  which  contended 
that  he  was  a  divine  person  adopted  the  position,  which 
they  thought  an  only  alternative,  that  he  derived  his  being 
by  generation.  Hence  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  gener- 
ation of  the  Sou  became  the  theory  of  the  orthodox  party 
in  the  Nicene  Council.  It  Avas  orthodox  to  maintain  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son,  against  the  position  that 
he  was  a  creature,  but  it  was  not  necessary  to  adopt  the 
theory  of  generation  to  maintain  the  truth  of  his  divinity. 
While  it  is  true  that  he  is  the  Son,  and  that  he  is  very  God, 
it  is  not  so  clear  that  he  is  these  by  generation.  It  does 
not  follow  that  the  doctrine  of  generation  is  true  because 
the  doctrine  of  creation  is  false.  The  orthodox  party  prob- 
ably would  not  have  adopted  the  theory  of  eternal  genera- 
tion had  it  not  been  that,  being  pressed  by  their  opponents 
with  the  argument  for  creation,  they  thought  as  they  re- 
jected creation  they  must  present  and  defend  some  other 
method  of  the  Son's  origin.  Whereas  it  is  unnecessary  to 
account  for  the  manner  of  the  divine  existence.  The  men  of 
that  noted  council  fell  into  a  grave  mistake  when  they  at- 
tempted to  account  for  the  method  of  the  divine  relation. 


172  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

The  Son  is  in  no  sense  derived,  neither  in  his  essence  nor 
in  his  person.  He  always  existed,  the  Son,  the  second  per- 
son in  the  Trinity — second  only  in  number  and  relation,  not 
in  posteriority.  The  Son  is  in  no  sense  from  the  Father, 
any  more  than  the  Father  is  from  the  Son.  The  divine  es- 
sence is  not  derived,  and  it  cannot  be  compounded  nor  di- 
minished, divided  nor  imparted.  There  is  no  such  thing  as 
emanation  in  the  divine  essence.  The  divine  essence  is  not 
by  generation  any  more  than  it  is  by  creation.  The  exist- 
ence of  the  Son  is  without  any  thing  proceeding  from  or 
accruing  to  the  Father.  In  the  essence  pertaining  to  the 
persons  of  the  Trinity  there  is  no  division  and  no  distinc- 
tion. The  divine  persons  are  neither  prior  nor  inferior  nor 
subordinate  to  each  other.  There  are  no  grades  or  degrees 
distinguishing  the  persons  of  the  triune  God.  There  is  no 
succession  in  the  personality  of  the  Godhead.  The  Sou  is 
inferior  to  the  Father  in  nothing  pertaining  to  his  divinity ; 
he  is  inferior  to  the  Father  only  in  the  human  nature  which 
he  took  upon  himself.  The  three  persons  in  the  Trinity 
differ  only  in  person  and  in  name,  and  in  what  each  does 
in  their  activities  and  administrations.  The  Sonship  per- 
taining to  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity  is  not  communi- 
cated. It  is  under  no  such  imperfection  as  belongs  to  com- 
munication. Being  a  Son  from  eternity,  there  is  no  imper- 
fection pertaining  thereto.  In  any  and  every  sense  in  which 
Jesus  Christ  in  his  divine  personality  was  a  Son,  he  was  a 
Sou  eternally — that  is,  from  everlasting  to  everlasting;  and 
in  every  sense  in  which  the  Father  in  his  divine  personality 
was  a  Father,  he  was  a  Father  from  eternity.  The  divine 
essence  and  the  divine  persons  were  neither  created  nor 
generated. 

Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  terms  designating  per- 
sons in  the  Trinity  and  distinguishing  them,  and  further 
than  this  are  not  expressive  of  paternity  nor  filiation  nor 


Or,  Sin  and  Satvafion.  1' 


procession.  Son  expresses  not  official  title,  but  personal  re- 
lation in  the  Trinity — a  divine  personal  relation.  Neither 
Father;  Son,  nor  Holy  Ghost,  as  terms,  expresses  any  acts 
by  which  the  relation  of  the  divine  persons  originated. 

The  term  "begotten,"  used  in  the  Scriptures  in  relation 
to  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  is  incidental  to  the  name 
and  relation  of  the  Sou,  and  is  simply  used  in  declaring 
and  distinguishing  him,  and  is  not  intended  to  express  ac- 
tion by  which  the  Son  receives  and  has  his  being,  either  in 
essence  or  person.  And  this  is  true  whether  the  term  re- 
fers to  him  in  his  divine  existence  as  he  was  from  eternity, 
or  to  him  in  the  union  of  his  two  natures  as  the  God-man. 
"Thou  art  my  Son;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  This 
no  more  intends  to  express  action  by  which  he  had  his  es- 
sence or  being  than  it  intends  to  declare  the  beginning  of 
his  existence.  This  simply  declares  him,  announces  him, 
in  his  being  and  mission,  in  his  relations,  purposes,  and 
achievements. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  in  their  divine  essence 
and  being  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  are  neither  superior 
nor  inferior  to  each  other.  Jesus  said:  "My  Father  is 
greater  than  I."  This  is  simply  a  contrast  of  the  divine 
nature  of  the  Father  with  the  human  nature  of  Jesus,  the 
Son.  The  Father,  in  his  divine  nature,  is  greater  than  Je- 
sus, the  Son,  in  his  human  nature.  At  another  time,  and 
in  another  place,  Jesus  said:  "I  and  my  Father  are  one." 
This  is  simply  a  portraiture  of  the  divine  natures  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  The  Father  and  the  Son  are  one  in 
that  they  are  both  divine.  Jesus  did  not  intend  to  assert 
that  the  Father  had  a  human  nature,  and  that  in  this  lie 
and  the  Father  were  the  same,  but  he  intended  to  assert  his 
own  divine  nature,  and  in  this  the  oneness  of  the  two.  The 
Father  and  the  Son  are  both  divine,  and  in  this  they  are 
one.  The  Father  is  only  divine,  while  the  Son  is  man  by 


174  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

the  assumption  of  human  nature ;  and  in  this  the  Father  is 
greater  than  the  Son.  Likewise  in  this  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
greater  than  the  Son.  Otherwise  the  three  are  equal  and 
one. 

An  effort  has  been  made  to  account  for  and  tell  how  the 
Holy  Ghost,  one  of  the  persons  in  the  divine  Trinity,  orig- 
inated. This  effort  has  given  rise  to  much  controversy,  and 
even  to  division,  in  the  Church.  Some  have  asserted  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  derived  his  essence  and  being  from  the 
Father,  and  others  have  asserted  that  he  derived  his  essence 
and  being  from  the  Father  and  from  the  Son  conjointly.  This 
doctrine  is  that  the  Holy  Ghost  received  his  essence,  being, 
and  nature  by  procession  from  the  Father  and  from  the  Son. 
Hence  some  confessions  of  faith  avow  the  eternal  procession 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Father  and  from  the  Son. 

The  divine  essence  is  not  communicable,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  not  the  result  of  a  communicated  essence  from  the 
Father  and  from  the  Son.  The  doctrine  of  Procession,  iu  the 
sense  of  communicating  the  essence,  being,  and  nature  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  without  foundation  in  reason  and  Scripture. 
There  is  no  truth  in  the  theory.  "  Eternal  procession  "  is  a 
phrase  contradictory  in  itself.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  a  divine 
person — is  very  God.  His  essence  and  being  are  underived. 
He  exists,  is  self-existent,  and  is  not  from  any  source  whatso- 
ever. The  triune  God  is  without  origin.  He  is  underived. 
God  existed  triune  from  eternity.  There  was  no  source  from 
whence  he  came,  nor  process  nor  action  by  which  he  derived 
his  being  or  received  his  nature.  The  Holy  Ghost,  in  the 
origin  and  existence  of  himself,  is  without  creation,  proces- 
sion, or  action  of  any  sort.  The  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  origin 
of  his  essence,  does  not  proceed  from  the  Son  any  more 
than  the  Son  proceeds  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Holy 
Ghost,  in  the  origin  of  his  essence,  does  not  proceed  from 
the  Father  any  more  than  the  Father  proceeds  from  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Sal  cat  ion.  17  "> 

Holy  Ghost.  The  Holy  Ghost,  iu  the  origin  of  his  essence, 
does  not  proceed  from  the  Father  nor  from  the  Son  any 
more  than  the  Father  proceeds  from  the  Son  or  the  Son 
proceeds  from  the  Father. 

"  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send 
unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which 
proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  will  testify  of  me."  This 
passage  of  Scripture,  found  in  John  xv.  26,  has  been  ad- 
duced to  prove  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  essence,  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Father  and  from  the  Son.  The  doctrine 
of  Eternal  Procession  was  not  found  in  and  brought  out 
of  this  text,  but  the  doctrine  was  invented,  and  then 
brought  to  and  reclined  on  this  text  for  support.  This  is 
the  best  scriptural  authority  that  could  be  adduced  in  de- 
fense of  the  dogma,  and,  insufficient  as  it  is  for  that  pur- 
pose, it  has  been  marshaled  into  service.  This  text  is  by 
no  means  obscure,  and  is  environed  by  no  great  difficulties. 
The  doctrine  of  the  oneness  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  lies  deeply  imbedded  in  this  text,  and  the  divine 
harmony  of  these  three  is  authoritatively  announced  there- 
in. This,  and  not  the  spreading  of  the  Father's  essence,  is 
in  the  text.  The  term,  in  the  text,  "proceedeth  from  the 
Father,"  is  the  term  specially  relied  on  to  prove  this  doc- 
trine of  Procession.  But  the  coming  forth  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  from  the  Father  in  heaven,  to  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
on  the  earth,  is  all  that  is  meant  by  this  term,  and  is  all 
that  can  possibly  be  intended  thereby.  The  simple  meaning 
of  the  word  "proceed"  is  to  move  forward  from  one  place, 
person,  or  thing  to  another;  to  issue  out  from.  Jesus,  for 
instance,  when  he  made  his  advent  as  Messiah,  "proceeded 
forth  and  came  from  God ; "  and  so  of  a  truth  he  came  do\\  n 
from  God  the  Father  out  of  heaven.  In  like  manner,  and 
in  the  same  sense,  and  in  no  other,  the  Holy  Ghost  pro- 
ceeded from  the  Father.  Jesus  sent  the  Holv  Ghost  frcm 


17C  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

heaven  to  his  disciples  who  were  upon  the  earth ;  the  Holy 
Ghost  came,  and  in  this  coming  to  the  disciples  on  the  earth 
he  came  from,  proceeded  from,  the  Father  and  from  the 
Son.  This,  and  nothing  more. 

"And  because  ye  are  sons  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit 
of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father."  This 
text,  found  in  Galatians  iv.  6,  has  been  brought  forward  to 
prove  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  essence,  proceeds  from 
the  Son.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  called,  in  this  text,  the  Spirit 
of  the  Son ;  and  hence  it  is  claimed  that  as  he  is  his  Spirit 
he  must,  in  his  essence,  proceed  from  the  Son.  He  is  not 
the  Spirit  of  the  Son  by  virtue  of  the  reception  of  his  es- 
sence and  existence  from  the  Son,  but  from  another  con- 
sideration altogether.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Son  and 
with  the  Son,  just  as  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  of  and 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  no  otherwise.  The  Holy  Ghost 
is  the  Spirit  of  Christ  because,  according  to  the  promise 
made  to  the  disciples,  he  was  sent  forth  into  the  world  by 
Christ,  when  Christ  ascended  up  on  high,  and  led  captivity 
captive  and  gave  gifts  unto  men.  He  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
because  he  testifies  of  Christ,  or  bears  witness  of  his  divine 
work  as  Mediator  and  Redeemer. 

Here  closes  the  proof  which  the  advocates  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Procession  adduce  from  the  Scriptures.  And  it  is 
manifest  that  this  doctrine  of  Procession  is  without  any  au- 
thority from  Scripture,  and  must  for  that  reason  be  reject- 
ed. Every  phase  of  doctrine  which  teaches  the  produc- 
tion of  one  of  the  divine  persons  by,  or  from,  the  others, 
or  which  teaches  the  subordination  of  one  of  the  persons 
of  the  Trinity  to  the  others,  must  be  rejected  as  inimical 
to  truth.  The  Holy  Ghost  has  never  been  produced,  or 
caused ;  and  not  having  been  formed  from  the  divine  sub- 
stance, he  cannot  be  absorbed  into  the  substance  of  the 
Deity.  He  cannot  be  absorbed  into  his  own  substance, 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  177 

nor  absorbed  in  any  way  whatsoever.  It  requires  no  acute 
reasoning  to  demonstrate  this  truth.  The  Holy  Ghost  is 
an  underived  being,  and  his  divinity  and  personality  can- 
not be  denied,  and  cannot  be  explained  away  by  rhetor- 
ical flourishes. 

As  God  is  approached  for  worship  it  is  very  important 
that  he  be  apprehended  as  a  triune  Qod,  and  that  his 
trinity  be  recognized  as  from  everlasting.  As  the  triune 
God  he  is  from  none.  The  Father  is  from  none;  the  Son 
is  from  none ;  the  Holy  Ghost  is  from  none.  Let  all  the 
intelligent  creatures  in  the  universe  join  in  the  doxology: 
"  To  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  one  God  in  persons 
three,  be  everlasting  praises  given." 

In  the  great  scheme  of  salvation  from  sin  stands  cen- 
trally and  preeminently  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Son  of  man,  the  God-man.  Jesus  Christ  is  sui  generis. 
Earth,  sun,  moon,  and  stars;  seeds,  plants,  and  trees;  rep- 
tiles, beasts,  fowls,  and  fishes;  and  men  and  angels,  and 
whatever  else  is,  have  their  natures;  but  in  all,  from  the 
lowest  to  the  highest,  there  is  nothing  like  Jesus  Christ. 
He  unites  in  himself  two  whole  and  perfect  natures.  He 
has  united  in  him — not  blended  and  mixed,  but  united 
— two  natures,  wherein  and  whereof  he  is  both  God  and 
man,  wherein  and  whereof  he  is  one  person,  the  God-man. 

The  Incarnation — the  assumption  of  human  nature  by 
the  Son  of  God,  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity — is  the 
most  wonderful  event  in  all  the  occurrences  taking  place 
in  the  cycles  of  eternity.  Here,  in  the  person  of  Jesus, 
the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Mary,  is  a  being  strangely 
combining  superiority  and  inferiority.  He  possessed  di- 
vine power  and  divine  knowledge,  and  was  under  the  disa- 
bilities of  human  weakness  and  human  ignorance.  Par- 
adoxical as  it  may  be,  he  possessed  all  things,  and  yet 
had  nothing.  He  was  the  author  of  all  life,  had  life  in 
12 


178  The  Ol<t  (di'l  the  Xew  Man : 

himself,  and  yet  was  subject  to  the  power  of  death.  In 
him  is  found  the  mystery  of  all  mysteries.  Without  doubt 
there  is  nothing  more  mysterious  than  the  union  of  two 
natures,  the  divine  and  the  human,  in  one  person.  There 
is  nothing  more  mysterious  than  "God  manifest  in  the 
flesh."  This  is  the  mystery  to  be  considered  and  accepted 
in  Jesus  Christ.  "Without  all  controversy,  great  is  the 
mystery  of  godliness;  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justi- 
fied in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gen- 
tiles, believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into  glory." 

The  'Son  of  God  took  not  the  nature  of  angels,  but 
man's  nature,  and  dwelt  in  human  flesh.  Jesus  of  Na/a- 
reth  was'  born  of  a  woman.  He  was  a  man.  "For  what 
the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the 
flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh  and  for  siii,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh."  "Every 
spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh 
is  of  God;  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  not  of  God."  That  the  Son 
of  God  took  on  him  the  nature  of  Abraham,  and  was  of 
the  seed  of  David,  is  an  essential  article  of  the  Christian 
creed,  and  as  such  must  be  demonstrated  and  vindicated ; 
for  false  prophets  and  avowed  infidels  have  denied  that 
"  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,"  for 
"  many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the  world,  who  confess 
not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh."  Jesus  Christ 
was  a  man.  His  human  nature  has  been  manifested  and 
demonstrated  through  sufferings.  He  has  been  revealed 
as  a  brother — as  a  brother  in  the  sufferings  incident  to  the 
life  through  which  every  human  being  must  pass.  He  en- 
dured grief  and  sorrows,  burdens  and  fatigue,  hunger  and 
destitution ;  he  endured  imprisonments  and  stripes,  tortures 
and  anguish,  maledictions  and  death.  Accumulated  proof 
this  that  he  was  a  man.  His  was  an  entire  human  nature; 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  179 

he  had  a  rational  soul  as  well  as  a  perfect  human  body. 
The  Apollinarian  scheme — which  denies  to  Christ  a  rational 
soul,  reduces  him  to  an  imperfect  being,  makes  him  infe- 
rior to  ordinary  men — presents  him  with  the  material  ele- 
ments of  human  nature  without  that  in  which  reside  the 
intellectual  and  moral  faculties  and  qualities.  When,  on 
that  memorable  occasion,  he  was  in  the  garden,  his  soul 
was  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto  death ;  and  when  on 
the  cross,  he  bowed  his  head  and  gave  up  the  ghost.  He 
could  not  give  up  a  spirit  of  which  he  was  destitute,  and 
sorrow  could  not  oppress  a  soul  of  which  he  was  void. 
The  scientific  speculations  in  which  this  Apollinarian  the- 
ory was  founded  were  false  in  themselves,  and  hence  the 
theory  is  absurd  in  all  its  features. 

Jesus  Christ  was  the  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  eternal 
God.  He  was  before  all  things,  having  life  and  existence 
in  himself,  and  giving  life  and  being  to  all  things.  That 
he  was  omnipotent  and  omniscient  is  demonstrated  by  the 
works  which  he  wrought  and  the  doctrines  which  he  taught. 
He  controlled,  as  omnipotence  alone  can  control,  all  the 
laws  and  elements  of  physical  nature;  and  he  expounded, 
as  omniscience  alone  can  expound,  all  the  laws  and  princi- 
ples of  the  moral  realm.  He  turned  water  into  wine,  mul- 
tiplied indefinitely  bread  and  fish,  walked  on  the  sea,  and 
calmed  the  storm ;  he  gave  sight  to  the  blind,  hearing  to 
the  deaf,  speech  to  the  dumb,  wholeness  to  the  maimed, 
soundness  to  the  diseased,  health  to  the  sick,  and  life  to 
the  dead.  He  spake  as  never  man  spake,  with  original  au- 
thority. He  was  a  teacher  who  set  forth  original  princi- 
ples, and  revealed  hidden  truths.  He  was  himself  the  au- 
thor of  the  law  and  the  truth.  He  dominated  nature,  men, 
and  devils.  He  is  God,  the  Creator.  "In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word 
was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  All 


180  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

things  were  made  by  him."  He  is  the  Creator  and  Perpet- 
uator  of  all  things.  "  For  by  him  were  all  things  created 
that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  in- 
visible, whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  princi- 
palities, or  powers;  all  things  were  created  by  him,  and 
for  him;  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all 
things  consist." 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  181 


CHAPTER  XI. 

REDEMPTION. 

work  of  redemption  is  unique,  and  is  the  work  pe- 
_  culiar  to  the  Son  of  God.  The  nature  and  character 
of  God,  the  nature  of  sin,  and  the  moral  .condition  of  the 
human  race,  as  presented  in  these  pages,  constitute  the  basis 
of  the  redemption  which  is  now  to  be  considered  and  here 
set  forth.  The  advent  of  Jesus  Christ  into  the  world  was 
for  the  redemption  of  the  human  race.  Redemption  has 
been  procured  and  proclaimed  through  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  birth  of  the  Son  of  Mary  was  announced  as 
the  birth  of  a  Saviour,  and  he  was  named  Jesus,  and  was 
spoken  of  to  those  who  waited  for  the  consolation  and  king- 
dom of  God,  to  all  those  who  looked  for  redemption  in  Is- 
rael, as  the  Christ  through  whom  the  good  tidings  of  salva- 
tion should  be  proclaimed  to  all  peoples.  Jesus  was  an- 
nounced and  pointed  out,  by  John  the  Baptist,  as  "  the 
Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world." 
Jesus  himself  said:  "And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in 
the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Sou  of  man  be  lifted  up; 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
eternal  life."  "And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
will  draw  all  men  unto  me.  This  he  said,  signifying  what 
death  he  should  die."  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us."  "  Forasmuch 
as  ye  know  that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible 
things,  as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  conversation  re- 
ceived by  tradition  from  your  fathers;  but  with  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without 


182  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

spot."  These  last  two  texts  are  the  utterances  of  Paul 
and  Peter,  giving  the  doctrine  of  redemption  by  Jesus  in  the 
profoundest  sense. 

Jesus  Christ  is  a  Saviour  and  a  Redeemer.  In  love  su- 
preme he  was  born  to  redeem.  Redemption  is  his  special 
work,  and  by  his  death  he  redeemed  the  human  race.  He 
is  the  one  "  in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood." 
What  is  redemption?  and  what  is  this  redemption  had 
through  Christ  Jesus?  These  questions  are  of  profoundest 
import,  and  call  for  a  definition  of  the  work  of  Christ  in 
its  specific  character.  Whatever  value  attaches  to  faith, 
experience,  and  practice;  to  hope,  love,  and  joy;  to  being, 
life,  and  immortality,  attaches  to  this  subject. 

Jesus  Christ  suffered  and  died  as  no  man  ever  suffered 
and  died,  and  as  no  man,  be  he  apostle  or  martyr,  can  ever 
suffer  and  die.  Persons  of  all  ages  and  conditions  have 
died — have  died  in  many  ways,  and  from  many  causes; 
the  young  and  helpless,  the  old  and  feeble,  heroes  and  mar- 
tyrs, have  died ;  but  none  have  ever  died  as  Jesus  died,  and 
no  death  ever  attached  to  it  the  significance  and  purpose 
which  pertain  to  his  death.  He  is  called  "  the  Lamb  of 
God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  This  title 
is  given  to  him  in  allusion  to  the  offerings  and  ceremonies 
under  the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  dispensations,  and  in  al- 
lusion to  services  of  fundamental  meaning  and  importance; 
and  he  is  "  the  Lamb  of  God  "  in  a  sense  in  which  no  other 
being  is,  and  he  takes  "  away  the  sin  of  the  world  "  as  no 
other  being  takes  it  away.  He  is  "  the  Lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  grace 
of  God,  tasted  death  for  every  man.  He,  the  just  one,  died 
for  the  unjust.  He,  having  no  sin  of  his  own,  died  for  the 
offenses  of  mankind.  He  was  cut  off  for  sins,  but  not  his 
own.  He,  innocent  and  pure  himself  and  in  himself,  was 
hanged  on  a  tree,  and  was  made  a  curse  for  the  redemption 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  183 

of  Adam  and  all  his  posterity — he  bearing  the  punishment 
of  all  the  sins  of  the  human  race  in  his  own  body.  His 
blood  was  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  through  his 
blood,  shed  in  death,  redemption  is  made  for  and  offered  to 
the  sous  of  men.  This  is  duly  testified.  "  To  put  away  sin 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,"  was  the  object  of  his  advent 
into  the  earth,  was  the  purpose  of  his  assumption  of  the 
seed  of  Abraham. 

A  proper  understanding  of  the  word  "  redeem  "  will  as- 
sist in  comprehending  the  redemption  had  through  the 
Son  of  Mary.  This  word  "  redeem "  is  of  plain  significa- 
tion, and  is  easily  defined.  To  redeem  is  to  purchase,  re- 
purchase, rescue,  deliver.  To  redeem,  or  to  purchase  by 
substitution,  is  enjoined  in  Exodus  xxxiv.  20:  "The  first- 
ling of  an  ass  thou  shalt  redeem  with  a  lamb."  To  redeem, 
to  repurchase,  to  buy  back,  is  provided  for  in  Leviticus  xxv. 
48 :  "After  that  he  is  sold  he  may  be  redeemed  again."  The 
sense  to  rescue,  or  deliver  from  an  enemy,  danger,  captivity, 
bondage,  evil,  and  punishment,  is  given  to  the  term  "re- 
deem "  in  the  following  passages  of  the  13ible :  "  In  famine  he 
shall  redeem  thee  from  death"  (Job  v.  20);  "And  I  will  re- 
deem theeout  of  the  hand  of  the  terrible"  (Jer.  xv.  21);  "And 
redeemed  them  from  the  hand  of  the  enemy"  (Ps.  cvi.  10); 
"And  redeemed  thee  out  of  the  house  of  servants  "  (  Micah  vi. 
4) ;  "And  redeemed  you  out  of  the  house  of  bondage"  (Deut. 
xiii.  5).  The  simple  meaning  and  plain  signification  of  the 
term  "redeem"  thus  understood  and  established,  it  is  quite 
easy  to  comprehend  what  the  work  attributed  to  Christ  is 
when  it  is  designated  the  work  of  redemption,  and  to  under- 
stand what  is  meant  when  Christ  is  designated  the  Redeemer. 
He  has  bought  the  world  with  a  price.  He  suffered  and  died 
frr  and  in  the  stead  of  sinners;  and  he  being  the  God-man, 
there  is  in  his  death  infinite  merit.  By  suffering  and  dying 
Jt-sus  offered  u  full  satisfaction  to  divine  law  and  to  divine 


184  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

justice,  and  made  an  atonement  for  the  sms  of  all  men. 
Christ  died  under  law  and  under  penalty.  He  was  exe- 
cuted under  judicial  process,  and  the  justice  of  the  law  of 
God  fell  upon  him.  His  sufferings  were  penal.  There  can 
be  no  proper  method  of  accounting  for  the  agony,  suffering, 
and  death  of  Jesus  except  on  the  assumption  that  he  suf- 
fered and  died  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  and  that  penal  in- 
fliction caused  to  meet  upon  him  the  chastisements  due  to 
the  iniquities  of  all  men.  The  Jews  and  Romans  had  no 
legal  authority  to  execute  Jesus,  inasmuch  as  he  was  guilty 
of  no  crime  against  their  laws;  and  their  actions  in  crucify- 
ing him  were  neither  righteous  nor  just,  and  yet  he  died 
under  the  infliction  of  a  righteous  law,  and  he  suffered  the 
penalty  due  to  offended  justice.  Jesus  had  no  sin  of  his 
own  for  which  he  deserved  to  die,  being  holy,  harmless,  un- 
defiled,  and  separate  from  sinners;  and  so  he  died  for  the 
sins  of  others.  He  suffered  death,  the  penalty  due  for  sin ; 
he  suffered  the  penalty  due  to  others.  His  death  was  expi- 
atory and  substitutional,  propitiatory  and  vicarious.  Hid 
death  was  sacrificial  and  piacular.  It  made  an  atonement 
in  the  expiation  of  guilt. 

In  constructing  their  creeds  the  Pelagians,  of  all  classes, 
and  of  all  shades  of  opinion,  repudiate  and  ridicule  the 
doctrine  of  punitive  justice,  vicarious  suffering,  and  sacrifi- 
cial expiation  of  guilt.  They  deny  that  Christ  suffered  the 
penalty  of  justice,  and  that  his  death  was  vicarious  aud  ex- 
piatory. 

Dr.  John  Taylor,  of  Norwich,  in  his  work,  "  The  Script- 
ure Doctrine  of  Atonement  Examined,"  maintains  that 
"there  cannot  be  a  vicarious  punishment,"  that  "no  one  can 
be  punished  instead  of  another,"  and  that  "  punishment  in 
its  very  nature  connotes  guilt  in  the  subject  which  bears  it." 
(Page  38.)  He  says:  "  But  is  not  vicarious  punishment,  or 
the  victim's  suffering  death  in  the  offender's  stead,  as  an  equiv- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  185 

alent  to  divine  justice,  included  in  the  notion  of  atonement? 
Answer,  No."  (Page  38.)  Again  he  says:  "Guilt  in  its 
own  nature  cannot  be  transferred."  (Page  96.)  Again: 
"  If  the  Lawgiver  should  insist  upon  vicarious  punishment, 
or  require  the  innocent  to  die,  or  accept  the  voluntary  death 
of  the  innocent,  by  way  of  commutation  for  the  death  of 
the  innocent,  this  seems  more  inconsistent  with  righteousness 
and  justice,  and  more  remote  from  all  the  ends  of  moral 
government,  than  simply  to  pardon  the  innocent  without  any 
consideration  at  all."  (Page  97.)  And  yet  again,  he  says: 
''The  design  of  it  [Christ's  death]  could  not  be  to  make 
God  merciful;  or  to  dispose  him  to  spare  and  pardon  us, 
when,  as  some  suppose,  so  great  was  his  wrath,  that,  had 
not  Christ  interposed,  he  would  have  destroyed  us.  This  is 
directly  contrary  to  the  most  plain  and  certain  notions  of 
the  divine  goodness,  and  to  the  whole  current  of  revelation, 
which  always  assures  us  that  the  pure  love  of  God  to  a  sinful 
world  was  the  first  mover  and  original  spring  of  the  whole 
of  our  redemption  by  Christ.  All  that  Christ  did  and  suf- 
fered was  by  the  will  and  appointment  of  God ;  and  was 
conducive  to  our  redemption  only  in  virtue  of  his  will  and 
appointment.  Nor  can  k  be  true  that  by  his  sufferings  he 
satisfied  justice,  or  the  law  of  God.  For  it  is  very  certain 
and  very  evident  that  justice  and  law  can  no  otherwise 
Le  satisfied  than  by  the  just  and  legal  punishment  of  the 
offender."  (Pages  93,  94.)  He  finally  tells  wherein  the 
virtue  and  efficacy  of  Christ's  death  consist,  according  to 
his  opinion,  in  these  words:  "But  the  word  of  God  gives  us 
much  more  just  and  sublime  sentiments,  and  shows  that 
our  Lord's  death  took  its  value  not  from  pain  or  suffering, 
imputation  or  punishment,  but  from  obedience  and  good- 
ness, or  the  most  complete  character  of  all  virtue  and 
righteousness,  the  noblest  of  all  principles,  and  the  highest 
perfection  of  intellectual  nature."  (Page  101.) 


186  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

In  his  "  Paraphrase  and  Notes  upon  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews," in  the  twenty-seventh  verse  of  the  seventh  chapter, 
on  the  words  "When  he  offered  himself,"  Dr.  A.  A.  Sykea 
says:  "Having  offered  himself.  Not  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice, 
but  as  having  done  the  will  of  his  Father.  To  ''offer  him- 
self" is  not  to  present  himself  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  to 
appease  God ;  for  God  was  already  so  far  appeased  as  to 
send  his  Son  into  the  world.  There  could  be  no  need  of 
reconciling  God  to  man,  when  he  had  already  shown  his 
love  to  man  so  far  as  to  send  his  Son  to  reconcile  man  to 
God." 

In  his  "Theodicy"  Dr.  Albert  Taylor  Bledsoe  maintains 
that  "the  retributive  justice  of  God  requires  the  punish- 
ment of  the  offender,  and  of  no  one  else;  it  accepts  of  no 
substitute,  and  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  it  can  be 
satisfied,  except  by  the  punishment  of  the  offender  himself; 
that  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  our  Saviour  became 
liable  to  the  infliction  of  the  retributive  justice  of  God. 
It  is  the  administrative  justice  of  God  that  has  been  satis- 
fied by  the  atonement  which  he  has  made.  No  satisfaction 
is  made  by  him  to  retributive  justice."  (Page  281.) 

He  further  says:  "This  [administrative  justice]  enforces 
the  punishment  of  the  sinner  in  order  to  secure  the  ends  of 
good  government,  and  it  is  capable  of  yielding  and  giving 
place  to  any  expedient  by  which  those  -ends  may  be  se- 
cured." (Page  281.) 

Again,  he  writes  the  following:  "There  is  a  class  of  the- 
ologians, we  are  aware,  and  a  very  large  class,  who  regard 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  a  satisfaction  to  the  retributive 
justice  of  God.  But  this  forms  no  part  of  the  doctrine 
which  we  have  undertaken  to  defend ;  and  indeed  we  think 
the  defense  of  such  a  view  of  the  atonement  clearly  impos- 
sible. .  .  .  We  would  vindicate  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
no  more  than  these  of  infants,  on  the  ground  that  sin  was 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  187 

imputed  to  him  so  as  to  render  them  just."  (Pages  282, 
283.) 

Once  more  he  says:  "According  to  the  sublime  idea  of 
revelation,  it  is  the  transcendent  glory  of  the  cross  that  it 
exerts  moral  influences  which  have  bound  the  whole  intel- 
ligent creation  together  in  one  harmonious  society  with 
God,  its  Sovereign  and  all-glorious  Head."  (Page  207.) 

The  Rev.  Hem-y  W.  Bellows,  of  New  York,  in  his  "  Re- 
statements of  Christian  Doctrine,"  says:  "There  can  be  no 
greater  or  more  blinding  heresy  than  that  which  would 
teach  that  Christ's  sufferings,  or  any  sufferings  in  behalf  of 
virtue  and  human  sins  and  sorrows,  are  strictly  substitu- 
tional,  or  literally  vicarious.  .  .  .  Literal  substitution 
of  moral  penalties  is  a  thing  absolutely  impossible!  Vica- 
rious punishment,  in  its  technical  and  theological  sense,  is 
forbidden  by  the  very  laws  of  our  nature  and  moral  con- 
stitution." (Pages  306,  307.) 

Taylor  and  Bledsoe,  Sykes  and  Bellows,  in  common  with 
all  other  Pelagians,  recognize,  as  they  are  compelled  to  do, 
the  existence  of  justice  as  an  attribute  of  God,  and  an  at- 
tribute which  condemns  sin  and  demands  the  punishment 
of  the  sinner;  but  they  all  alike  parade  the  idea  of  God  as 
a  Magistrate  or  Governor  exercising  a  public  or  adminis- 
trative justice  founded  in  his  love  and  mercy,  and  requir- 
ing, in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  no  consideration  apart  there- 
from. This  is  a  mere  invention — a  simple  trick  of  sophistry. 
Terms  distinctive  and  descriptive  may  be  proper  and  use- 
ful in  the  discussion  of  the  atoning  work  of  Christ;  and  dis- 
tinctions in  the  relations  of  justice  there  may  be,  but  dis- 
tinctions which  dethrone  justice,  or  make  it  antagonistic  to 
itself,  or  in  any  way  change  its  nature,  are  not  to  be  al- 
lowed. Administrative  justice,  or  justice  described  by  any 
other  term,  is  not  independent  of  justice  inherent  in  ( Jod. 
The  very  thing  to  be  done  in  formulating  a  ctecd  upon  the 


188  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

redemptive  work  of  Christ  is  to  show  how  the  administra- 
tion of  God  in  the  forgiveness  of  the  sinner  harmonizes  with 
that  justice  which  is  an"  attribute  of  God  and  of  his  law. 
The  question  to  be  settled  in  this  connection  is  this :  How 
can  God  be  just  and  the  justifierof  the  ungodly?  Invent- 
ing learned  definitions  of  justice,  though  intelligent  defini- 
tions of  justice  are  not  to  be  despised,  and  extolling  God's 
love  and  mercy,  though  his  love  and  mercy  in  Jesus  Christ 
are  \vorthy  of  all  praise,  can  never  answer  this  question. 
The  Bible  novthere  intimates  that  Christ  satisfied,  by  his 
sufferings,  administrative  justice  in  contradistinction  to  re- 
tributive justice.  The  Bible  nowhere  teaches  that  Christ  re- 
lieved the  human  race  of  disabilities  imposed  and  demanded 
by  public  or  administrative  justice,  but  left  the  race  still 
under  the  claims  and  disabilities  of  unsatisfied  retributive 
justice.  According  to  the  position  and  argument  of  Dr. 
Bledsoe,  sinners  have  never  been  redeemed  by  Christ  nor 
by  any  one  else  from  the  claims  and  condemnation  of  re- 
tributive justice;  and  then,  according  to  the  same  position 
and  argument,  sinners  must  themselves  pay  the  penalty  due 
to  retributive  justice  by  suffering  the  eternal  punishment 
exacted  of  and  visited  upon  them,  and  this  without  ever 
having  had  any  help,  offer,  or  hope  from  Christ;  or  if  they 
escape  this  penalty  and  doom,  it  is  by  simple  repentance 
without  any  satisfaction  made  to  this  retributive  justice  by 
the  sufferings  of  Christ.  And  thus  Dr.  Bledsoe  annuls  the 
whole  work  of  Christ's  atonement  while  pretending  to  at- 
tach some  importance  to  it,  and  while  trying  to  cover  up 
his  heresy  with  the  sophistry  of  an  argument.  The  truth 
is,  if  Christ  has  not  made  satisfaction  to  retributive  justice, 
then  retributive  justice  has  not  been  satisfied,  and  the  world 
is  just  where  it  would  be  without  his  death. 

While  Dr.  Taylor  in  his  scheme  repudiates  the  doctrine 
of  vicarious  punishment,  and  that  Christ  suffered  death  in 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  189 

the  sinner's  stead,  and  as  a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  he 
holds,  nevertheless,  that  there  is,  under  the  administration 
of  the  Divine  Magistrate,  virtue  hi  the  death  of  Christ. 
He  teaches  that  Christ's  death  is  conducive  to  redemption 
because  of  God's  will  and  appointment,  and  that  its  efficacy 
consists  in  its  being  a  perfect  example  and  pattern  of  good- 
ness and  obedience,  having  in  it,  as  such,  moral  posver,  and 
a  natural  and  strong  tendency  as  a  moral  means  to  affect 
the  mind  of  the  sinner  and  induce  him  to  seek  for  holiness. 
He  teaches  that  the  death  of  Christ  has  in  it  efficacy  to 
affect  both  God  and  the  sinner,  just  as  have  the  ordinary 
means  of  grace,  and  not  otherwise.  To  use  his  own  words : 
"  Thus  also  we  may  form  an  idea  of  the  effect  that  sacrifices 
have  with  God,  which  cannot  well  be  conceived  to  be  any 
other  than  that  of  prayer  and  praise,  or  other  expressions 
of  our  religious  regards,  which  are  pleasing  to  God  as  they 
proceed  from  or  produce  good  affections  in  us."  "As  our 
prayers  are  a  reason  of  God's  conferring  blessings  upon  us 
because  our  prayers  are  means  of  producing  pious  disposi- 
tions in  our  minds,  so  the  blood  of  Christ,  or  his  perfect 
obedience  or  righteousness,  makes  atonement  for  sin,  or  is  a 
reason  for  God's  forgiving  our  sins,  because  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  a  means  of  cleansing  us  from  sin."  ("Scripture 
Doctrine  of  Atonement,"  pp.  21,  127.) 

So  absurd  is  his  scheme,  and  so  false  is  his  logic,  that  in 
attempting  to  show  wherein  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death 
consists,  Dr.  Taylor  fails  to  show  what  Christ's  death  is  for, 
and  he  puts  the  cause  for  the  effect. 

In  his  Notes  on  the  twenty-seventh  verse  of  the  seventh 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Dr.  Sykes,  as  al- 
ready quoted,  says:  "To  offer  himself,  is  not  to  present  him- 
self as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  to  appease  God ;  for  God  was 
already  so  far  appeased  as  to  send  his  Son  into  the  world. 
There  could  be  no  need  of  reconciling  God  to  man,  when 


190  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

he  had  already  shown  his  love  to  man  so  far  as  to  send  his 
Sou  to  reconcile  man  to  God." 

This  is  the  key-note* by  which  the  whole  system  of  the 
atonement  is  modulated  by  Ariuns,  and  all  other  classes  of 
Pelagians.  The  system  assumes  that  God  is  not  angry  with 
the  transgressor,  and  is  not  therefore  to  be  appeased,  or 
reconciled ;  that  his  love  and  mercy  to  the  human  race  an- 
tedate the  atonement,  and  move  him  to  save  all  who,  moved 
by  moral  influences  and  good  examples,  are  reconciled  and 
turn  to  him. 

The  opponents  of  the  expiating  death  of  Christ  set  forth 
their  positions  with  an  amazing  confidence,  and  they  strive 
with  a  remarkable  zeal  to  make  plausible  their  theory,  not- 
withstanding it  is  so  utterly  repugnant  to  the  Holy  Script- 
ures. They  quote,  with  great  complacency,  in  support  of 
their  heretical  notions,  John  iii.  16:  "For  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
belie veth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life." 

Mercy  is  not  an  attribute  of  God  as  are  justice  and  om- 
nipotence. Mercy  is  an  exercise  of  clemency  toward  of- 
fenders arising  in  and  beginning  with  the  provision  of  re- 
demption in  Christ  Jesus.  And  the  mercy  of  God  upon 
the  human  race  never  antedated  one  hour  the  assumption 
by  the  Son  of  God  of  the  atoning  work  of  a  Saviour.  It 
is  true  that  redemption,  as  a  remedy  for  the  relief  of  the 
fallen  race,  was  provided  by  God,  and  that  in  providing 
this  remedy  he  was  moved  by  his  inherent  benevolence;  but 
this  does  not  depreciate  the  work  of  Christ,  nor  disprove 
the  expiating  efficacy  of  his  death.  Justice  and  mercy  meet 
in  the  atonement.  God  was  benevolent,  not  merciful,  in 
making  the  world.  He  was  benevolent,  loving,  and  merci- 
ful in  providing  for  the  redemption  of  the  world,  and  in 
redeeming  it,  for  it  was  fallen  and  criminal,  and  needed 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  191 

compassion  as  it  deserved  wrath  and  damnation.  There 
was  no  propitiating  sacrifice  required  to  move  and  justify 
God  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  but  in  the  work  of  sal- 
vation there  was,  and  without  this  there  could  be  no  salva- 
tion. The  very  text  so  implicitly  relied  on  to  show  that 
there  was  no  necessity  for  reconciling  God  to  man  abso- 
lutely carries  with  it  a  declaration  of  merit  in  Christ,  and 
that  a  consideration  was  required  and  had  to  be  given  to  se- 
cure life  to  the  world,  a  sacrifice  had  to  be  made  involving 
anguish  and  suffering.  The  appeasing  of  the  wrath  of  God 
was  the  very  purpose  for  which  the  Son  was  sent  into  the 
world  in  the  form  of  a  man.  God  inaugurated  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  voluntarily  condescended  to  make  an 
offer  of  the  same  to  man,  but  the  mediation  of  Christ  was 
the  ground  of  and  reason  for  all  this.  The  reason  for  the 
initiation  of  salvation,  no  less  than  the  consummation  there- 
of, is  the  mediation  of  Christ. 

The  Bible,  in  divers  manners,  teaches  that  Christ  suffered 
and  died  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  man,  and  to  be  a  sacri- 
fice for  sins,  and  that  he  suffered  death  for  the  redemption 
of  the  world,  and  that  by  his  death  he  made  a  sacrifice  and 
satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  all  men,  and  that  those  who  are 
saved  are  accounted  righteous  by  God  for  his  merit  alone. 
Life  and  salvation  are  offered  to  sinners  through  Jesus 
Christ  as  they  are  not  through  any  other  medium.  Jesus 
"  through  the  Eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to 
God,"  and  he  it  is  "whom  God  has  set  forth  to  be  a  propi- 
tiation," and  who  is  "the  propitiation  for  our  sins." 

The  sacrifices  of  Abel,  Enoch,  and  Noah;  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob;  of  Moses,  Ithamar,  and  David;  and  of 
Zacharias,  Simeon,  and  Cornelius,  were  types  of  the  sacrifice 
made  by  "the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world;"  and  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices  offered  by  these 
contrite  and  devoted  worshipers  of  Jehovah  pointed  to  "  the 


192  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

blood  of  Christ,"  and  therefrom  derived  its  significance  and 
value.  Hence,  so  many  allusions  by  inspired  authors,  when 
speaking  of  the  work  of  Christ,  to  the  offerings  and  sacri- 
fices adopted  by  the  law  of  Moses,  and  incorporated  into  its 
ritual.  "  For  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  (Mat.  xxvi. 
28.)  "For  even  Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us." 
(1  Cor.  v.  7.)  "As  Christ  also  hath  loved  us,  and  hath 
given  himself  for  us  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for 
a  sweet-smelling  savor."  (Eph.  v.  2.)  "But  Christ  being 
come  a  high-priest  of  good  things  to  come,  by  a  greater  and 
more  perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say, 
not  of  this  building;  neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and 
calves,  but  by  his  own  blood  he  entered  in  once  into  the 
holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us. 
For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sauctifieth  to  the  purifying  of 
the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who 
through  the  Eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to 
God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the 
living  God?  And  for  this  cause  he  is  the  mediator  of  the 
new  testament,  that  by  means  of  death,  for  the  redemption 
of  the  transgressions  that  were  under  the  first  testament, 
they  which  are  called  might  receive  the  promise  of  eternal 
inheritance.  For  where  a  testament  is,  there  must  also  of 
necessity  be  the  death  of  the  testator.  For  a  testament  is 
of  force  after  men  are  dead:  otherwise  it  is  of  no  strength 
at  all  while  the  testator  liveth.  Whereupon  neither  the 
first  testament  was  dedicated  without  blood.  For  when 
Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to  all  the  people  according 
to  the  law,  he  to&k  the  blood  of  calves  and  of  goats,  with  wa- 
ter, and  scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the 
book  and  all  the  people,  saying,  This  is  the  blood  of  the 
testament  which  God  hath  enjoined  unto  you.  Moreover, 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  193 

he  sprinkled  likewise  with  blood  both  the  tabernacle  and  all 
the  vessels  of  the  ministry.  And  almost  all  things  are  by  the 
law  purged  with  blood ;  and  without  shedding  of  blood  is  no 
remission.  It  was  therefore  necessary  that  the  patterns  of 
things  in  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with  these;  but  the 
heavenly  things  themselves  with  better  sacrifices  than  these. 
For  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with 
hands,  which  are  the  figures  of  the  true;  but  into  heaven 
itself,  nowr  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us :  nor  yet 
that  he  should  offer  himself  often,  as  the  high-priest  enter- 
eth  into  the  holy  place  every  year  with  the  blood  of  others ; 
for  then  must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  . 
the  world ;  but  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he 
appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself." 
(Heb.  ix.  11-26.)  "Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were 
not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and  gold, 
from  your  vain  conversation  received  by  tradition  from  your 
fathers ;  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb 
without  blemish  and  without  spot."  (1  Peter  i.  18,  19.) 

These  passages  are  presented  here  as  samples  of  many 
others  which  might  be  adduced  on  this  feature  of  the  case. 
The  first  text  here  written  is  constituted  of  Christ's  own 
•words,  anchgives  his  own  presentation  of  the  subject,  and 
evidently  alludes  to  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  the  sacri- 
fices by  the  Jews  and  the  patriarchs  in  their  approaches  to 
God,  and  iu  making  covenants  with  him.  Than  the  lan- 
guage here  used,  none  could  be  more  comprehensive  in  pre- 
senting the  purpose,  efficiency,  and  merit  of  Christ's  death 
and  blood.  "Shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Vi- 
carious, appeasing  the  divine  wrath,  purchasing  salvation, 
the  cause  and  ground  of  the  remission  of  sins.  The  second 
text  here  given,  "Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us," 
is  an  allusion  to  the  lamb  sacrificed  in  the  passover  service 
of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  is  positive  authority  for  the  posi- 
13 


194  The  Old  and  the  Xcn< 


tion  that  the  paschal  lamb  was  a  type  of  Christ.  Christ 
was  offered  as  a  sacrifice  to  appease  the  divine  displeasure 
which  rested  on  sinners.  The  third  text  here  quoted,  "And 
hath  given  himself  for  us  an  offering  and  sacrifice  to  God," 
is  an  unmistakable  reference  to  the  oblations  and  sacrifices 
provided  for  in  the  ritual  service  of  the  Israelites,  and  es- 
tablishes the  fact  that  they  were  types  of  Christ,  and  is  in- 
contestable evidence  of  the  vicarious  offering  of  Christ,  and 
of  his  making,  by  his  death,  a  sacrifice  for  the  purpose  of 
appeasing  an  offended  God.  He  offered  himself  to  God  a 
sacrifice  for  guilty  men.  This  unusually  long  passage,  taken 
i'rom-the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  is  in- 
troduced here  because  it  is  a  comprehensive  presentation  of 
the  relation  sustained  by  the  sacrifices  prescribed  by  the 
laws  of  Moses  to  that  sacrifice  of  Christ.  From  this  para- 
graph from"  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  it  is  l.arned  that  the 
whole  ritual  service,  and  all  the  priestly  offerings  provided 
for  by  the  Mosaic  economy,  had  specific  reference  to  Christ 
— typified  the  oblation  and  atonement  made  in  and  by  his 
blood,  and  drew  all  their  virtue  therefrom.  The  text  quot- 
ed from  St.  Peter  is  a  most  beautiful  and  edifying  allusion  to 
the  sacrifices  required  in  the  worship  of  God  under  the  Lc- 
v ideal  economy.  Except  upon  the  proposition  that  the  sac- 
rifices ordained  and  offered  under  the  Levitical  law  were 
types  of  Christ,  the  allusion  of  Peter  could  have  no  mean- 
ing whatsoever. 

Dr.  Sykes  rejects  as  untenable  and  unscriptural  the  posi- 
tion "that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  were  types  of  Christ;  or 
that  they  were  allusions  to,  or  even  that  they  had  any  rela- 
tion to,  his  sacrifice."  In  his  argument  in  defense  of  his 
position,  the  Doctor  says:  "  When  two  things  arc  compared 
together  by  an  inspired  writer,  it  does  not  follow  from 
thence  that  the  one  is  typical  of  the  other.  Allusions  do 
not  establish  types.  It  is  essential  to  the  notion  of  a  type 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  195 

that  it  represents,  and  was  designed  to  represent,  something 
future."  ("  Paraphrase  and  Notes  upon  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,"  Introduction,  pp.  44,  46-48.) 

To  all  this  the  following  reply  is  just,  and  is  quite  suffi- 
cient: 

1.  It  is  true  that  a  mere  allusion  to  two  things  together, 
by  an  author,  does  not  constitute  the  things  thus  alluded  to 
types  of  each  other,  but  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  the 
sacrifices  enjoined  by  the  law  of  Moses  were  not  types  of 
the  sacrifice  made  by  Christ. 

2.  It  may  or  it  may  not  be  essential  to  the  notion  of  a 
type  that  it  represents,  and  was  designed  to  represent,  some- 
thing future.     One  way  or  the  other  the  point  under  con- 
sideration is  not  thereby  affected.     It  is  essential  to  the  no- 
tion of  a  type  that  it  represents  the  thing  in  some  way  of 
which  it  is  a  type.     This  is  little  more  than  a  truism.     And, 
moreover,  it  is  not  possible  to  conceive  of  such  a  thing  as  a 
type  without  a  design ;  but  these  do  not  affect  the  question 
involved  one  Avay  or  another. 

3.  The  inspired  writers  do  not  speak  of  the  sacrifices  pro- 
vided for  in  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as 
simply  having  a  faint  resemblance  to  each  other.     In  their 
allusions    to    the   sacrifices  of  the  law  in  connection  with 
Christ  they  present  the  former  as  types  of  the  latter.    They 
do  not  compare  them  as  simply  having  some  resemblance  to* 
each  other. 

Dr.  Sykes  exerted  his  utmost  ability  to  maintain  the  po- 
sition that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  had  no  relation  to  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ.  He  insisted  that  the  sacrifices  of  the 
law  had  an  independent  purpose,  and  deriving  no  efficacy 
from  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  contained  in  themselves  what- 
ever merit  pertained  thereto,  and  that  they  were  confined 
in  the  purpose  and  promise  thereof  to  the  present  life,  to 
civil  privileges  and  offenses,  to  present  temporal  possessions, 


196  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

to  earthly  goods  and  political  franchises;  while  the  sacri- 
fice of  Christ,  in  its  purpose  and  promise,  had  reference  to 
spiritual  benedictions,  to  a  future  life,  to  an  eternal  inher- 
itance in  heaven.  On  this  behalf  he  wrote  the  following 
sentences:  "Nor  is  it  anywhere  said  that  the  sacrifices  of 
the  law  received  their  efficacy  from  the  great  sacrifice  of 
Christ."  (Page  248.)  "  The  covenant  of  Moses  was  a  cov- 
enant which  contained  the  promises  of  a  long  life  and 
plenty  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  The  covenant  made  by 
Christ,  or  brought  from  God  and  offered  to  the  world  by 
him,  was  a  covenant  by  which  God  engaged  himself  to 
grant  immortal  life  in  heaven  to  all  who  obeyed  the  condi- 
tions of  it."  (Page  106.) 

These  are  the  positions  persistently  held  by  all  those  who 
deny  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  and  the  penal  sufferings  thereof 
— sufferings  for  appeasing  divine  wrath  and  satisfying  di- 
vine justice.  With  Dr.  Sykes,  Dr.  John  Taylor  holds  the 
same  positions.  He  says:  " Levitical  sacrifices  had  relation 
only  to  this  present  world,  and  the  political  life  and  state  of 
a  Jew ;  as  they  gave  him  a  right  to  live  and  enjoy  all  the 
privileges  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  But  their  virtue  did  not 
extend  to  the  conscience,  to  free  that  from  guilt  before  God, 
or  to  procure  his  favor  and  pardoning  mercy.  For  it  was 
not  possible  that  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats, 
as  a  mere  political  institution,  should,  in  this  sense,  take 
away  sins.  Nor  did  the  Levitical  law,  thus  considered,  ex- 
tend to  the  ivorld  to  come.  For  it  gave  not  the  least  hope 
or  prospect  of  a  resurrection  to  life,  w7hich  is  the  most 
proper  and  complete  justification  or  discharge  from  sin — 
but  after  all,  rites,  services,  and  sacrifices  performed,  left  a 
man  under  the  power  of  death,  wrhich  is  the  curse  of  the 
law.  Its  best  promises  entitled  a  man  only  to  a  temporal, 
political  life ;  and  its  threatening  was  death  without  hopes 
of  a  revival.  And  thus  it  left  the  Jews  in  their  sins,  as  to 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  197 

that  eternal  life  which  is  the  gift  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord."  ("  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Atonement," 
pp.  72,  73.) 

These  men — Sykes  and  Taylor — in  their  efforts  to  sup- 
port'their  theories,  involve  themselves  in  palpable  contra- 
dictions and  absurdities.  They  pretend  to  believe  and  as- 
sume to  teach  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  before  God  and 
eternal  life  are  secured  in  and  through  Jesus  Christ;  and,  at 
the  same  time,  in  their  efforts  to  get  rid  of  appeasing  and 
vicarious  sacrifices,  they  involve  themselves  in  the  conclu- 
sion that  those  who  lived  under  the  Levitical  economy  were 
without  any  provision  for  securing  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
committed  against  the  moral  law,  or  for  securing  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  or  eternal  life.  "While  these  authors 
write  the  words, "eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,"  their  propositions  and  arguments,  couched 
in  actual  words,  involve  the  assumption  that  all  who  lived 
anterior  to  the  death  of  Christ  were  without  the  least  pro- 
vision for  securing  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  the  resurrec- 

o  o  * 

tion  of  the  dead,  or  eternal  life;  and  that  all  these  died 
without  any  knowledge  of  salvation,  and  without  any  prom- 
ise or  hope  of  a  future  state.  For  teachers  thus  to  involve 
themselves  in  contradictions  and  absurdities  is  to  refute 
their  own  arguments  and  demolish  their  own  theories. 
But  heretics  are  always  entangled  with  contradictions  and 
inconsistencies. 

It  is  a  truth  that  "  eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,"  a  truth  which  these  authors,  in  any  proper 
sense,  do  not  hold.  It  is  none  the  less  a  truth  that  the  gen- 
erations of  men  anterior  to  the  death  of  Christ  were  clearly 
within  the  provisions  of  redemption — had  their  being  by 
virtue  thereof — and  all  the  benefits  of  redemption  were  ac- 
cessible to  them,  and  all  of  them  who  had  a  knowledge  of 
God  had  a  knowledge  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and 


198  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

all  of  them  who  properly  worshiped  Jehovah  were  animat- 
ed by  the  hope  of  a  future  and  blissful  immortality.  To 
Adam,  the  first  man,  was  given,  after  he  had  sinned,  a  full 
gospel.  To  him  was  made  by  God,  a  full  and  complete 
revelation  of  the  system  and  work  of  salvation.  The  God- 
man — in  his  redemptive  work,  in  his  conflicts  and  tri- 
umphs— was  as  clearly  and  beautifully  presented  to  Adam 
as  to  David  and  Daniel,  as  to  Paul  and  Peter.  Adam  was 
fully  instructed  in  the  doctrines  of  Deity,  sin,  penally, 
atonement,  repentance,  faith,  justification,  regeneration, 
sanctifi cation,  resurrection,  immortality,  judgment,  bell, 
heaven,  damnation,  and  glorification.  To  Abel,  Seth,  and 
Noah,  to  Abraham,  Melchisedek,  and  Job — in  a  word,  to 
all  God's  people  in  patriarchal  and  prophetic  times — was 
given  a  complete  revelation  of  the  whole  system  of  redemp- 
tion. It  is  not  true  that  patriarchs  and  prophets  groped 
in  darkness,  and  sought  their  way  by  obscure  intimations 
of  truth.  They  were  as  fully  acquainted  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  immortality  of  the 
soul  as  are  Christians  of  the  present  day.  They  were  as 
joyous  in  the  experience  of  sins  forgiven,  and  a  soul  re- 
generated, as  were  Timothy  and  Paul. 

Christ  is  "Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the"  end, 
the  first  and  the  last."  The  gospel  of  Jesus  was  preached, 
and  his  Church  was  organized,  in  the  beginning.  "In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word."  Jesus  was  present  in  the  ca- 
pacity of  a  Savi®ur  with  the  first  generation,  as  he  will  be 
present  in  the  capacity  of  a  Saviour  with  the  last  genera- 
tion of  the  race  of  Adam.  Abel — of  the  first  generation — 
approached  God  by  Christ,  who  is  "  the  way,  the  truth,  and 
the  life."  "  Enoch  also,  the  seventh  from  Adam,  prophe- 
sied of  these,  saying,  Behold,  the  Lord  cometh  with  ten 
thousand  of  his  saints,  to  execute  judgment  upon  all,  and 
to  convince  all  that  are  ungodly  among  them  of  all  their 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  199 

ungodly  deeds  which  they  have  ungodly  committed,  and 
of  all  their  hard  speeches  which  ungodly  sinners  have 
spoken  against  him."  (Jude  14.)  ""Enoch  walked  with 
God;  and  he  was  not;  for  God  took  him."  (Gen.  v.  24.) 
"By  faith  Enoch  was  translated,  that  he  should  not  see 
death;  and  was  not  found,  because  God  had  translated 
him ;  for  before  his  translation  he  had  this  testimony,  that 
he  pleased  God."  (Heb.  xi.  5.)  This  man  Enoch  lived 
in  the  seventh  generation  from  Adam.  He  knew,  believed, 
oBeyed,  enjoyed,  and  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ.  The 
triumphs  of  the  gospel,  the  end  of  time,  the  proceedings  of 
the"  general  judgment,  the  awards  which  will  be  meted  to 
men  in  the  future  state,  were  themes  with  Avhich  Enoch  was 
familiar,  and  upon  which  he  discoursed  to  the  congrega- 
tions of  his  day.  Than  Enoch  no  one  ever  had  a  deeper 
knowledge  of  Christ,  a  richer  Christian  experience,  a  sub- 
limer  destiny,  or  a  grander  end.  That  he  who  prophesied 
.of  tbe  triumphs  of  the  Lord  attended  by  the  multitudes  of 
his  saints,  proclaimed  and  portrayed  the  transactions  of  the 
day  of  judgment,  was  so  obedient  to  the  ordinances  of  God 
that  he  had  the  testimony  that  he  pleased  him,  had  such 
faith  that  he  was  translated  to  heaven  that  he  should  not 
die,  was  without  the  promise  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and 
the  hope  of  eternal  life,  no  one  can  believe  except  a  heretic. 
Noah,  who  lived  prior  to  the  flood  as  well  as  after  it,  was, 
as  is  learned  from  the  apostle  Peter,  "a  preacher  of  right- 
eousness." Here  were  the  things  which  pertain  to  a  spirit- 
ual kingdom,  the  things  which  purify  the  conscience,  and 
guarantee  justification  and  eternal  life.  Noah  was  "  heir  of 
the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith."  This  embodies  the 
highest  Christian  attainment  in  this  life,  and  gives  promise 
of  the  highest  felicity  in  the  life  to  come.  "The  righteous- 
ness which  is  by  faith"  is  the  righteousness  which  Noah 
preached  to  the  antediluvians,  and  it  has  its  origin  and 


200  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

source  in  Jesus,  and  can  be  preached  through  and  drawn 
from  him  only.  Noah  preached  the  same  gospel  which  was 
preached  by  Paul,  Silas,  and  others  of  their  day. 

Abraham,  though  living  two  thousand  years  before  the 
advent,  possessed  a  perfect  knowledge  of  Jesus  and  the  res- 
urrection, and  had  faith  and  joy  in  the  same.  Jesus  said: 
"Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day;  and  he  saw  it,  and 
was  glad."  (John  viii.  56.)  The  apostle  said:  "By  faith 
Abraham,  when  he  was  tried,  offered  up  Isaac;  accounting 
that  God  was  able  .to  raise  him  up,  even  from  the  deacT." 
(Heb.  xi.  17,  19.)  Abraham  believed.  In  whom  did  he 
believe?  In  Jesus,  who  said,  "I  am  the  resurrection  and 
the  life."  He  offered  sacrifices  through  him,  sung  praises 
to  his  name,  rejoiced  in  his  triumphs  and  shouted  over  his 
victories.  He  was  as  happy  in  the  renewing  and  saving 
grace  of  Jesus  imparted  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  rejoiced 
therein  as  constantly  as  were  and  did  the  chosen  apostles. 
He  looked  forward  to  the  time  when  he  would  put  off  his 
earthly  tabernacle,  and  be  clothed  upon  \vith  his  house 
•which  is  from  heaven,  with  as  much  anticipation  and  assur- 
ance as  did  Paul  and  the  pious  of  Paul's  day.  The  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  teaches  this.  In  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  this  Epistle  he  names  .some  of  the  saints  raid 
worthies  of  patriarchal  and  prophetic  times,  among  them 
Abraham,  and  says  of  them :  "  These  all  died  in  the  faith,  not 
having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen  them  afar  off, 
and  were  persuaded  of  them  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed 
that  they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.  For  they 
that  say  such  things  declare  plainly  that  they  seek  a  country. 
And  truly,  if  they  had  been  mindful  of  that  country  from 
whence  they  came  out,  they  might  have  had  opportunity  to 
have  returned.  But  now  they  desire  a  better  country,  that  is, 
a  heavenly;  wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their 
God;  for  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city."  "And  these 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  201 

all,  having  obtained  a  good  report  through  faith,  received 
not  the  promise:  God  having  provided  some  better  thing 
for  us,  that  they  without  us  should  not  be  made  per- 
fect." (Verses  13-16,  39,  40.)  The  promises  made  to  these 
saints,  and  worthies  of  past  ages,  the  blessings  of  which,  in 
their  consummation,  they  had  not  received  before  they  died, 
were  those  pertaining  to  eternal  life — to  an  inheritance  con- 
summated in  heaven.  The  consummation  of  these  prom- 
ises shall  be  attained  when  all  the  redeemed  of  every  gen- 
eration and  clime  shall  be  gathered  into  the  paradise  of  God, 
Where  the  saints  of  all  ages  in  harmony  meet. 

Moses  knew  of  Christ  the  Messiah,  believed  in  and  re- 
ceived him  as  his  Saviour,  renouncing  therefor  honors  and 
riches  in  Egypt,  and  wrote  of  and  prophesied  concerning 
him.  "  By  faith  Moses,  when  he  was  come  to  years,  refused 
to  be  called  the  son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter ;  esteeming  the 
reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  treasures  of 
Egypt."  (Heb.  xi.  24—26.)  •  Christ  and  his  reproach  an; 
here  named  as  included  in  the  choice  of  Moses.  Had  he 
been  ignorant  of  Christ  and  the  reward  with  which  Chrisb 
would  recompense  him,  he  could  not  have  esteemed  the  re- 
proach thereof  greater  riches  than  the  treasure  at  his  dis- 
posal in  Egypt. 

While  led  by  Moses  in  the  wilderness,  the  children  of 
Israel  had  Christ  with  them,  and  were  nourished  and  re- 
freshed by  him.  "For  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  rock 
that  followed  them ;  and  that  rock  was  Christ."  (1  Cor.  x. 
4.)  This  demolishes  the  theory  that  the  promises  of  God  to 
this  people  were  confined  to  milk  and  honey,  and  political 
franchises  in  the  land  of  Canaan. 

The  subject  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  as  well 
as  that  of  the  New  Testament  is  Christ  the  Redeemer  of 
the  world.  He  is  the  theme  upon  which  the  law,  the 
Psalms,  and  the  prophets  everywhere  discourse.  "Philip 


202  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

fiudeth  Nathanael,  and  saith  unto  him,  We  have  found  him 
of  whom  Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  did  write, 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph."  (John  i.  45.)  "  To 
him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 
(Acts  x.  43.)  Prophets  and  priests,  by  both  message  and  sac- 
rifice, constantly  proclaimed  the  Christ.  Many  passages  in  the 
Old  Testament  are  but  the  texts  upon  which  and  from  which 
the  prophets  preached  profound  and  exhaustive  sermons — ser- 
mons which  embodied  every  theme  of  gospel  truth.  Christ  is 
the  Saviour  of  men,  and  the  only  Saviour.  This  much  con- 
cerning him  Peter  declared  to  the  rulers  of  the  people  and  the 
elders  of  Israel :  "  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other ;  for 
there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men 
whereby  we  must  be  saved."  (Acts  iv.  12.)  This  passage 
of  Scripture  is  so  comprehensive  that  it  includes  all  climes, 
and  is  applicable  to  all  times.  Salvation  can  be  obtained 
alone  in  Jesus  Christ.  This  was  as  true  in  the  time  of  Moses 
as  in  the  time  of  Peter,  and  consequently  if  men  were  not 
saved  in  the  time  of  Moses  and  of  Ezekiel,  and  in  the  time 
of  Noah  and  Abraham  by  Christ,  they  were  not  saved  at 
all.  The  gospel  of  Christ  hath  been  preached  beginning 
with  the  very  first  generation  of  the  race,  and  to  all  genera- 
tions Jesus  hath,  through  this  gospel,  brought  life  and  im- 
mortality to  light.  The  cross  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on 
Calvary  stands  in  the  middle  of  the  ages,  and  to  it  the  eyes 
of  all  generations  have  turned,  and  in  it  the  pious  of  all 
generations  have  gloried.  Peter  and  Paul,  Stephen  and 
John,  are  no  more  sinners  saved  by  grace,  and  are  no  more 
Christians  crowned  in  heaven,  than  are  Abel  and  Abraham, 
Enoch  and  Elijah. 

The  Pentateuch  embodies  and  announces  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  in  its  provisions  of  mercy  and  its  offers  of  par- 
don as  clearly  and  directly  as  dees  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ; 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  203 

and  the  claims  of  God  and  the  demands  of  his  law,  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  makiugsatisfaction  to  divine  justice  before  the  guilty 
can  be  released  from  the  penalty  attached  to  crime,  are  plain- 
ly presented  in  the  Pentateuch.  "And  the  Lord  passed  by  be- 
fore him,  and  proclaimed,  The  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful 
and  gracious,  long-suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity  and 
transgression  and  sin,  and  that  will  by  110  means  clear  the 
guilty.''  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7.)  The  grandeur  and  power,  the 
majesty  and  glory  of  Jehovah  are  here  displayed,  but  his 
redeeming  grace  is  proclaimed  as  well.  There  is  nowhere 
a  loftier  conception  or  a  sublimer  portraiture  of  Christ  in 
his  work  of  mediation  than  is  here  recorded.  The  Epistles 
of  the  New  Testament  do  not  exceed  the  Pentateuch  in  the 
loftiness  of  their  promises  and  the  minuteness  of  their  de- 
scriptions of  a  spiritual  heritage. 

Deliverance  from  sin  is  on  the  basis  of  merit  existing  and 
accepted.  The  Scriptures  connect  salvation,  in  its  offer 
and  bestowment,  with  a  reason.  A  price  is  always  named 
as  a  consideration  wherever  there  is  a  tender  of  pardon,  and 
of  immunity  from  punishment.  That  merit  is  the  merit  of 
the  suffering  Son  of  God,  that  reason  his  death,  that  price 
his  blood.  The  Bible  nowhere  teaches  that  sins  are  for- 
given because  God  is  good,  or  loving,  or  merciful,  or  long- 
suffering.  It  is  nowhere  said  that  God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  forgave  the  sin  thereof,  nowhere  said  that  he  is  so 
lenient  that  he  justifies  the  ungodly.  But  the  following 
are  specimens  of  the  utterances  of  the  Scriptures :  "  For 
God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life."  (John  iii.  16.)  "Him  hath  God  exalted 
with  his  right-hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give 
repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins.  .  .  Be  it  known 
unto  you  therefore,  men  and  brethren,  that  through  tlv's 


204  The  Old  and  the  New  Man. 

man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  (Acts  v. 
31;  xiii.  38.)  "Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus:  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  de- 
clare his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are 
past  through  the  forbearance  of  God ;  to  declare,  I  say,  at 
this  time  his  righteousness;  tlfat  he  might  be  just,  and  the 
justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus.  .  .  .  Who  was  de- 
livered for  our  offenses,  and  was  raised  again  for  our  justi- 
fication. Therefore,  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace 
with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (Rom.  iii.  24- 
26;  iv.  25;  v.  1.)  "In  whom  we  have  redemption  through 
his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of 
his  grace."  (Eph.  i.  7.)  "  For  there  is  one  God  and  one 
mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus ;  who 
gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time." 
(1  Tim.  ii.  5,  6.)  "Wherefore  Jesus  also,  that  he  might 
sanctify  the  people  with  his  own  blood,  suffered  without  the 
gate."  (Heb.  xiii.  1 2. )  "  For  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered 
for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to 
God,  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the 
Spirit."  (1  Pet.  iii.  18.)  "And  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
his  Sou  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  (1  John  i.  7.) 

In  language  concise,  comprehensive,  conspicuous,  and 
most  beautiful,  the  Bible  teaches  that  Jesus  died  to  redeem 
and  save  sinners.  He  was  made  under  the  law,  was  made 
to  be  sin  for  sinners,  was  made  a  curse  for  sinners ;  he  offered 
cne  sacrifice,  and  suffered  once  for  sins;  in  his  own  person 
on  the  cross  he  bore  the  sins  of  the  guilty;  he  died  for  sins, 
he  died  for  sinners,  and  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  he  put 
away  sin.  Upon  him  Avere  laid  the  sins  of  the  wt>rld,  and 
he  endured  the  penalty  thereof.  He  suffered  the  penalty 
of  the  violated  law,  and  by  his  death  made  satisfaction  to 
offended  justice,  and  propitiated  an  angry  God.  He  satis- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  205 


fied  divine  justice  by  suffering  the  punishment  due  to  the 
sins  of  the  fallen  race.  In  attestation  thereof  the  following 
texts  are  adduced.  Many,  very  many  others  equally  con- 
clusive might  be  given :  "  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs, 
and  carried  our  sorrows;  yet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken, 
smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted.  But  he  was  wounded  for 
our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities;  the 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him;  and  with  his 
stripes  \ve  are  healed.  All  Ave  like  sheep  have  gone  astray ; 
we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way;  and  the  Lord 
hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  He  was  oppressed, 
and  he  was  afflicted,  yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth ;  he  is 
brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  before 
her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  openeth  not  his  mouth.  He  was 
taken  from  prison  and  from  judgment;  and  who  shall  de- 
clare his  generation?  for  he  was  cut  off  out  of  the  land -of 
the  living;  for  the  transgression  of  my  people  was  he  strick- 
en. And  he  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the 
rich  in  his  death;  because  he  had  done  no  violence,  neither 
was  any  deceit  in  his  mouth.  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to 
bruise  him  ;  he  hath  put  him  to  grief;  when  thou  shalt  make 
his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed,  he  shall 
prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prosper 
in  his  hand.  He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and 
shall  be  satisfied;  by  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  serv- 
ant justify  many;  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities."  (Isa. 
liii.  4-11.)  "Even  as  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  min- 
istered unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom 
for  many."  (Matt.  xx.  28.)  "For  this  is  my  bipod  of  the 
new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remissioVi  of 
sins."  (Matt.  xxvi.  28.)  "Now  it  was  not  written  for  his 
sake  alone  that  it  was  imputed  to  him ;  but  for  us  also,  to 
Avhom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  we  believe  on  him  that  raise:! 
up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead ;  who  was  delivered  for 


206  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

our  offenses,  and  was  raised  again  for  our  justification." 
(Rom.  iv.  23-25.)  "  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for 
whom  Christ  died."  (Rom.  xiv.  15.)  "  For  I  delivered  unto 
you  first  of  all  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures."  (1  Cor.  xv. 
3.)  "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew 
no  sin ;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him."  (2  Cor.  v.  21.)  "And  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  gave  himself  for  our  sins."  (Gal.  i.  3,  4.)  "Christ 
hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a 
curse  for  us."  (Gal.  iii.  13.)  "  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made 
of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons." 
(Gal.  iv.  4,  5.)  "Who  his  own  self 'bare  our  sins  in  his 
own  body  on  the  tree."  (1  Peter  ii.  24.)  "For  Christ  also 
hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he 
might  bring  us  to  God."  (1  Peter  iii.  18.)  "And  he  is  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  (1  John  ii.  2.) 

These  texts  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  their  undisguised 
meaning,  support  the  theory  in  redemption  which  insists  on 
penalty,  punishment,  substitution,  satisfaction,  and  establish 
the  evangelical  doctrine  of  the  atonement.  There  is  no 
possible  ground  upon  which  to  question  the  reference  of  the 
fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  to  Jesus.  The  New  Testament 
settles  this  reference  conclusively.  Many  passages  might 
be  cited  in  support  of  this  position  that  the  reference  is  to 
Jesus,  but  Actsviii.  32-36  is  sufficiently  conclusive  in  itself, 
and  Dr.  Qarpenter,  notwithstanding  his  effort  to  refute  the 
doctrine  that  Jesus  is  very  God,  and  to  demolish  the  theory 
of  the  vicarious  and  propitiating  sufferings  of  Christ,  ad- 
mits in  his  book,  "A  View  of  the  Scriptural  Grounds  of 
Unitarianism,"  that  1  Peter  ii.  24  "contains  an  obvious 
reference  to  Isaiah  liii.,  in  which  are  described  the  suffer- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  207 

ings  of  Jesus  and  the  purposes  of  them."  (Page  327.)  No 
language  could  be  framed,  no  sentences  could  be  formed, 
which  would  express  more  forcibly  the  visitation  of  penalty 
and  the  infliction  of  punishment  upon  one  person  for  an- 
other than  is  done  by  the  language  of  Isaiah  in  this  fifty- 
third  chapter  of  his  p'rophecies.  It  would  be  impossible  to 
teach  more  clearly  and  positively  the  substitution  of  one 
person  for  another  in  bearing  sin,  in  suffering  punishment, 
in  paying  penalty,  and  in  satisfying  justice,  than  is  done 
here  by  Isaiah.  According  to  this  inspired  word  here  re- 
corded the  guilt  of  sinners  was  imputed  to  Jesus,  an^l  the 
punishment  due  to  the  same  was  visited  upon  him;  and  this 
was  done  by  God  himself.  "  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  "him 
the  iniquity  of  us  all."  Jesus,  in  his  own  person,  bore  the 
guilt  incurred  by  the  sins  of  men ;  and  he,  in  his  own  per- 
son, suffered  the  punishment  justly  due  to  the  offenses  com- 
mitted against  the  divine  law,  and  by  his  atoning  death  pro- 
cured help  and  hope,  healing  and  health,  for  a  sinful  race. 
The  other  passages  given  above  from  the  Scriptures  teach 
the  same  things,  with  equal  emphasis,  that  are  taught  by 
the  quotation  from  Isaiah. 

All  those  who  espouse  the  doctrines  of  Pelagianism,  Ari- 
anism,  and  Unitariauism,  reject  and  denounce  vicarious 
suffering,  penal  satisfaction,  and  every  other  point  belong- 
ing to  the  theory  of  a  proper  atonement.  Some  men  hav- 
ing membership  and  receiving  emoluments  as  Methodists, 
and  professing  to  hold  and  expound  the  Arminian  creed, 
denounce  the  doctrines  of  vicarious  suffering  and  penal  sat- 
isfaction as  irreconcilable  to  human  reason,  as  inconsistent 
with  human  goodness,  as  absolutely  revolting  to  the  com- 
mon instincts  and  feelings  of  the  human  heart.  Infidels 
and  heretics  constantly  appeal  to  human  reason  and  human 
goodness  in  support  of  their  theories,  though  they  never 
accord  with  the  one  or  protect  and  advance  the  other. 


208  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

Some  men  having  membership  as  Methodists  have  written 
and  have  had  published  books  in  which  they  have  made 
statements  and  advocated  positions  which  either  disparage 
their  own  intelligence  or  discredit  their  own  veracity.  Vi- 
carious suffering  and  penal  satisfaction  cannot  be  eliminated 
from  a  scriptural  theory  of  atonement — cannot  be  expunged 
from  the  beautiful  system  of  Arminianism.  Vicarious  suf- 
fering and  penal  satisfaction  cannot  be  made  to  fit  into  the 
systems  of  Arianism  and  Unitarianism ;  and  hence  all  who 
espouse  the  doctrines  of  these  systems  repudiate  vicarious, 
suffering  and  penal  satisfaction. 

Dr.  Carpenter,  an  avowed  Unitarian,  laboring  to  refute 
the  doctrines  that  Christ  is  a  divine  person,  and  that  his 
death  made  a  proper  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  men,  and 
has  immediate  efficacy  in  securing  salvation,  says:  "I  can- 
not hesitate  in  saying  with  the  apostle  that  we  have  forgive- 
ness of  sins  by  means  of. his  blood  or  death;  but  what  this 
has  to  do  with  the  doctrines  of  vicarious  punishment  and 
satisfaction  I  cannot  perceive."  "The  doctrines  of  satis- 
faction and  vicarious  punishment,  followed  to  their  just  con- 
clusions, destroy  the  force  of  Christian  sanctions."  "The 
doctrines  of  satisfaction  and  vicarious  punishment  are  the 
chief  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  proper  deity  of  Christ, 
and  that  on  the  other  hand  supports  them."  ("Scripture 
Grounds  of  Unitarianism,"  pp.  323,  346,  348.) 

All  this  is  said  in  support  of  the  scheme  of  Unitarianism, 
a  scheme  which  denies  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  which  de- 
nies that  his  death  made  a  proper  satisfaction  to  offended 
justice  and  violated  law.  Let  special  notice  be  given  to  the 
fact  that  this  Unitarian  here  quoted  insists  that  the  death 
of  Jesus  is  a  means  of,  not  a  reason  for,  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  Let  those  Methodists  who,  when  discussing  the  ques- 
tions of  sin  and  atonement,  renounce  and  denounce  as  a 
doctrine  the  satisfaction  made  by  the  death  of  Christ,  con- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  209 

sider  in  what  company  they  are  found,  and  with  what 
scheme  they  ally  themselves.  The  Unitarian  scheme,  which 
denies  iuhred  sin,  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  that  he  suffered 
punishment  in  the  place  of  sinners,  and  that  by  his  death 
he  made  satisfaction  to  .divine  justice,  is  none  the  less  heret- 
ical and  false  because  it  is  advocated  by  some  men  who  have 
what  importance  they  possess  by  being  called  Methodists. 
Men  who  sail  under  false  colors  are  rather  to  be  spurned  than 
trusted.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the  Wes- 
leyan  Methodist  Church  in  England,  and  other  leading 
Methodist  Churches,  are  evangelical  in  doctrines,  are'Ar- 
minian  in  creed.  These  leading  Methodist  Churches,  in  their 
creeds  and  recognized  standards,  teach  the  fall  of  Adam 
and  his  posterity  together,  the  doctrine  of  inbred  sin,  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ — that  his  death  was  necessary  for 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  could  not  be  substituted  with 
some  other  provision  in  the  divine  economy ;  that  he  died  in 
the  place  of  sinners,  and  that  his  death  made  satisfaction  to 
divine  justice,  and  in  consideration  thereof  God  is  placable. 

That  the  Methodists  of  America  believe  and  teach  that 
the  death  of  Christ  made  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  men, 
that  they  hold  the  theory  of  satisfaction  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  opposing  theories,  is  evinced  by  an  absolute  declaration 
.in  their  articles  of  religion,  found  in  their  books  of  dis- 
cipline. Article  XX.  contains  the  following:  "The  offer- 
ing of  Christ,  once  made,  is  that  perfect  redemption,  propi- 
tiation, and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world, 
both  original  and  actual ;  and  there  is  none  other  satisfac- 
tion for  sin  but  that  alone." 

Dr.  Carpenter,  true  to  his  theory,  on  page  315  of  his 
book,  says:  "The  death  of  Jesus  was  a  necessary  yet  vol- 
untary means  of  furnishing  those  aids  by  which  men  were 
purified  from  their  sins."  It  is  true  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  voluntary.  He  voluntarily  submitted  to  death.  He, 
14 


210  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

according  to  his  own  words,  voluntarily  surrendered  his  life. 
"  No  man'  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself." 
That  Jesus  had  power  and  authority  to  lay  down  his  life, 
and  that  he  did  voluntarily  submit  to  death,  shall  constant- 
ly be  maintained  in  these  pages  as  a  truth;  but  the  point 
now  insisted  on  is  that  the  death  of  Jesus  was  not  simply 
a  means  of  furnishing  aid  to  men  in  escaping  from  sin,  but 
that  it  was  a  necessary  ground,  and  a  meritorious  reason 
for  deliverance  from  guilt  and  punishment.  The  Script- 
ures, in  presenting  and  describing  the  nature  and  purposes 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  use  the  terms  "ransom,"  "redeem," 
"bought,"  "purchase."  Jesus  "gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
all,"  and  "hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law." 
The  "purchased  inheritance"  is  mentioned,  and  it  is  said 
"he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood"  the  Church  of 
God.  There  is  in  the  death  of  Christ  a  value,  a  merit ;  it 
has  a  purchasing,  a  procuring,  a  conferring  power.  His 
death  was  not  simply  a  ratification  of  a  covenant,  but  it 
was  literally  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  Men  are  commanded 
to  "believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  with  the  promise 
that  they  "shall  be  saved,"  and  "through  faith  in  his 
blood"  the  "remission  of  sins"  is  obtained.  The  death  of 
Christ  is  thus  invested  with  power  and  purpose  unknown 
to  means  and  ordinances.  Prayers,  songs,  alms,  and  ordi- 
nances are  right  in  themselves,  are  enjoined  as  works  and 
duties,  and  are,  in  their  measure,  pleasing  to  God  and  profit- 
able to  those  who  use  them ;  but  nowhere  are  men  com- 
manded to  believe  in  these  means  of  grace  and  acts  of  de- 
votion. Nowhere  has  it  been  said,  Believe  on  prayer  and 
you  shall  be  saved;  nowhere  has  it  been  said,  Believe  on 
ceremonies  and  ordinances  and  you  shall  receive  remission  ol 
sins;  nowhere  has  it  been  said,  The  Church  of  God  has  been 
purchased  with  the  songs  of  Zion;  nowhere  has  it  been 
said,  You  have  been  redeemed  with  the  praises  of  the  as- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  211 

sembly.  There  is  therefore  an  intrinsic  value  belonging  to 
the  blood  of  Christ  which  does  not  inhere  in  conventional 
ceremonies  and  carnal  ordinances,  however  beautiful,  prop- 
er, and  influential  they  may  be. 

Dr.  Carpenter  takes  occasion  to  translate  the  Greek  text 
of  the  twenty-fifth  verse  of  the  fourth  chapter  of  Romans. 
The  Authorized  Version  has  it:  "Who  was  delivered  for 
our  offenses,  and  was  raised  again  for  our  justification." 
Dr.  Carpenter  gives  it:  "Who  was  delivered  up  on  account 
of  (<^«)  our  sins,  and  was  raised  on  account  of  (<^«)  our 
justification."  After  giving  this  translation  he  makes  an 
exposition  of  the  text,  and  says :  "  The  first  clause  expresses 
two  things:  that  it  was  on  account  of  sins  that  Jesus  died; 
and  that  it  was  for  sins  of  others,  not  his  own."  ("Script- 
ure Grounds  of  Unitarianism,"  p.  317.)  By  translating  in 
this  way  the  Greek  preposition  3ta,  and  by  commenting  in 
this  manner  upon  the  text,  this  Unitarian  endeavors  to 
weaken  the  force  and  destroy  the  authority  of  the  passage 
in  teaching  the  vicarious  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
But  the  effort  displays  its  own  futility.  This  Greek  prepo- 
sition, Sta,  has  several  meanings,  such  as  "through,"  "by," 
"at,"  "from,"  "for."  "On  account  of"  is  a  sense  in  which 
it  is  sometimes  used,  but  it  will  not  bear  this  sense  in  this 
text  now  under  consideration.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus 
was  not  on  account  of  the  justification  of  men,  as  though 
he  was  raised  because  men  were  justified,  but  his  resurrec- 
tion was  in  order  to  the  justification  of  men,  he  was  raised 
up  that  they  might  be  raised  up.  The  resurrection  of  Je- 
sus was  not  the  result  of  the  justification,  but  the  justifica- 
tion was  to  follow  as  the  result  of  his  resurrection.  The 
preposition  is,  therefore,  properly  translated  by  the  English 
preposition  "for."  It  is  readily  conceded,  and  shall  be 
firmly  maintained,  that  Jesus 'died  "for  the  sins  of  others, 
not  his  own."  "He  was  delivered  for  our  offenses." 


2 1 2  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

Still  intending  to  impair  the  force  and  destroy  the  au- 
thority of  the  passages  which  contain  such  terms  as  "Christ 
died  for  us,"  and  "Christ  died  for  the  ungodly,"  Dr. "Car- 
penter enters  into  an  examination  and  gives  a  criticism  of 
a  part  of  the  fifteenth  verse  of  the  fourteenth  chapter  of 
Romans:  "Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat  for  whom  Christ 
died."  Upon  these  words  the  shifty  Doctor  remarks:  "If 
it  had  been  clearly  said  that  Christ  died  in  our  stead,  I  do 
not  perceive  that  it  would  have  justified  the  idea  that  he 
was  punished  in  our  stead.  But  the  fact  is  that  the  expres- 
sion actually  found  in, this  and  other  similar  passages  is 
exceedingly  general,  and  denotes  no  more  than  that  Jesus 
died  for  our  benefit."  Then,  after  naming  what  he  says 
"are  the  principal,  if  not  all,  of  the  other  texts  in  which 
the  death  of  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  being  for  us,  for  men, 
for  the  ungodly,"  he  says :  "  The  obvious  force  of  the  prepo- 
sition u-sp  is  protection."  (Pages  319,  320.)  Such  inter- 
pretations and  criticisms  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  suggest  the 
presence  of  those  who,  professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  be- 
came fools,  and  in  their  unrighteousness  perverted  the  truth 
of  God.  The  Greek  preposition  uxsp  has  several  significa- 
tions, such  as  "on,"  "upon,"  "instead  of,"  "for,"  and  its 
meaning  is  not  to  be  lost  sight  of  and  perverted  by  empha- 
sizing the  word  "protection."  This  preposition  (uxsp},  used 
in  so  many  passages  of  the  Scriptures  when  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Jesus  are  mentioned,  does  make  these  passages 
say  clearly  that  Christ  died  for,  instead  of,  sinners;  died  for, 
instead  of,  the  ungodly.  But  suppose  it  be  granted  that 
Christ  died  "on  account  of"  sins,  died  "on  account  of"  the 
ungodly,  what  then?  His  death  was,  nevertheless,  to  make 
satisfaction  for  sins,  and  was  for  the  purpose  of  redeeming 
the  ungodly  from  the  guilt  and  punishment  due  to  their 
sins.  As  death  is  the  penalty  of  sin,  and  Jesus  suffered 
death  for  sins  and  for  sinners,  the  idea  that  he  was  punished 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  213 

for  and  instead  of  sinners  is  fully  justified.  The  truth  is, 
"it  has  been  clearly  said  that  Christ  died  in  our  stead."  In 
the  same  book,  from  which  so  many  quotations  have  been  ' 
made,  at  page  321,  Dr.  Carpenter,  commenting  on  the  text 
"For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,"  says:  "Jesus  was 
made  sin,  inasmuch  as  he  was  treated  as  a  sinner."  This  is 
enough.  If  Jesus  was  treated  as  a  sinner,  then  was  he  pun- 
ished, for  sinners  are  punished ;  and  if  he  was  treated  as  a 
sinner,  then  he  was  so  treated  for,  instead  of,  sinners — for 
Jesus  was  not  a  sinner  himself.  If  he  was  treated  as  a  sin- 
ner, and  was  not  so  treated  as  in  the  place  of  others  who 
wore  sinners,  then  he  was  treated  unjustly,  not  being  a  sin- 
ner himself. 

All  the  tribes  who  renounce  the  doctrines  of  original  or 
birth  sin,  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  necessity  of  re- 
generation originating  in  native  depravity,  unite  in  renounc- 
ing the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  by  the 
death  of  Christ.  All  the  schemes  of  all  these  tribes  co- 
alesce in  opposing  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction.  Whether 
what  is  known  as  the  "moral  influence  system,"  or  what 
is  called  the  "governmental  theory,"  is  marshaled  into 
service,  it  is  all  the  same;  both  of  these  theories,  with  all 
kindred  theories,  have  been  instituted  in  opposition  to  the 
great  Bible  doctrine  of  satisfaction. 

An  effort  has  been  made  to  disguise  heresy  and  to  under- 
mine the  system  of  divine  truth  by  advocating,  in  the  name 
of  Methodism  and  Arminianism,  what  is  called  the  "  Gov- 
ernmental Theory  of  Atonement."  In  this  effort  to  disguise 
heresy  the  assertion  has  been  made  that  the  Arminian  sys- 
tem repudiates  the  theory  of  satisfaction  and  holds  the  gov- 
ernmental theory,  and  also  that  Methodist  standards  of 
highest  authority  reject  the  theory  of  satisfaction  and  ac- 
cept and  defend  the  governmental  theory. 

The  theory  of  satisfaction  is  the  theory  adopted  and  de- 


214  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

fended  by  Arrainians,  and  by  all  Arminian  Methodists,  and 
is  the  theory  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

This  theory  of  satisfaction  is  defended  here,  not  because 
it  abnegates  the  divine  law  and  annihilates  the  divine  gov- 
ernment, but  because  it  is  the  theory  upon  which  the 
Scriptures  vindicate  the  divine  law  and  establish  the  divine 
government,  while  extending  amnesty  and  salvation  to  a 
revolted  and  sinful  race.  Verily,  there  is  divine  law  and 
divine  government.  There  are  divine  rights  and  human 
interests.  God  is  a  Governor,  with  rights  and  preroga- 
tives all  his  own;  and  when  he  created  beings,  put  them 
under  law,  and  made  them  amenable  to  moral  govern- 
ment, he  invested  them  with  eternal  interests  all  their  own; 
and  under  his  sovereignty  there  is  an  enforcement  of  law 
and  an  administration  of  government  in  which  absolute 
regard  is  constantly  had  to  the  rights  of  God,  and  in 
which  the  interests  of  his  creatures  are  never  imperiled. 
It  must  not,  however,  be  forgotten  that  man  is  fallen  and 
sinful,  his  rights  having  been  forfeited,  and  his  interests 
having  been  sacrificed,  not  by  God,  not  by  the  result  of 
his  administration,  but  by  the  disobedience  of  man  him- 
self. There  are  law,  government,  administration,  rights, 
and  interests;  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  these  cannot  bo 
and  at  the  same  time  sin  be  forgiven,  while  as  yet  no  sat- 
isfaction has  been  made  to  violated  law  and  offended  jus- 
tice. This  so-called  governmental  theory  of  atonement  en- 
deavors by  its  own  terms  to,  and  carried  to  its  own  con- 
clusions would,  annul  law,  demolish  the  divine  govern- 
ment, and  enthrone  sin.  The  theory  of  satisfaction  is  the 
correct  theory  in  that  it  recognizes  the  demerit  of  sii:, 
and  the  actuality  of  government,  establishes  law,  and  vin- 
dicates the  divine  administration  in  the  salvation  of  sin- 
ners. With  sin  and  law  there  is  no  accordance.  God,  in 
his  administration,  must  harmonize  with  his  own  law.  Sin 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  215 


impinges  the  law  of  God;  if  it  did  not  there  would  be  no 
occasion  for  its  punishment,  there  would  be  no  occasion 
for  its  forgiveness;  and,  consequently,  the  law  cannot  be 
maintained  and  sin  forgiven  in  the  absence  of  satisfaction 
made  for  the  impingement;  and  therefore  the  administra- 
tion of  God  would  be  antagonistic  to  the  just  and  abso- 
lute demands  of  his  own  law  did  he  forgive  sins  without 
satisfaction  made  thereto  by  penalty  inflicted  and  endured. 
In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  righteous  law,  divine  law, 
cannot  be  annulled,  and  no  theory  can  be  true  which  ab- 
rogates the  claims  thereof.  The  divine  law  is  like  God 
himself,  and,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  cannot  vio- 
late itself,  and  it  cannot  provide  for  its  own  violation, 
and  it  cannot  approve  when  it  has  been  violated.  For 
law  to  provide  for  a  violation  of  itself,  or  for  it  to  ap- 
prove the  violation  when  occurring,  would  be  as  great  a 
contradiction  and  as  positive  an  absurdity  as  for  God  to  lie, 
or  annihilate  himself.  The  divine  administration  may  not 
antagonize  the  divine  law,  and  so  God  must  punish  sin  in 
all  cases;  and  he  must  punish  it  in  those  lying  under  its 
guilt,  or  find  a  ransom  in  a  substitute.  Was  it  possible  to 
find  a  proper  substitute?  Was  it  possible  to  find  one  who 
could  take,  in  the  penalty  of  the  law,  the  place  of  those 
who  have  sinned?  Yes;  and  it  has  been  done.  The  Bible 
teaches  that  Christ  has  been  "  made  sin  for  us,"  and  hath 
"  borne  our  offenses."  By  his  death  Christ  made  satisfac- 
tion to  an  offended  God  and  a  violated  law,  and  for  this  rea- 
son pardon  is  offered  and  salvation  is  given.  Salvation  is 
through  and  by  the  death  of  Christ.  By  this  method  the 
law  is  maintained,  justice  is  done,  men  are  saved,  and  God 
is  glorified. 

It  is  admitted  here  and  now  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
universe  like  the  substitution  and  satisfaction  of  Jesus.  It 
is  vain  to  search  in  human  administration?,  in  human  ex- 


216  The  Old  and  the  New  Mm, : 

pedients,  for  any  thing  having  resemblance.  There  is  noth- 
ing analogous.  Similitudes  and  synonyms  are  unknown 
here ;  attempts  at  illustration  are  all  futile.  Attempts  have 
been  made  by  many  who  have  written  upon  theological  sub- 
jects to  illustrate  the  promptings  and  principles  which 
moved  and  controlled  Jehovah  in  the  provisions  of  the 
atonement,  and  thus  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment itself.  It  has  become  fashionable  to  introduce  Zaleu- 
cus  to  illustrate  these  point,1?.  The  history — supposing  it  to 
be  history — is  that  Zaleucus  was  at  one  time  the  lawgiver 
and  king  of  the  Locrians.  He  enacted  a  law  against  adul- 
tery, and  gave  it  force  by  attaching  to  its  violation  a  pen- 
alty. Whoever  violated  this  law  was  to  be  punished  by 
having  both  eyes  put  out.  The  son  of  the  king  violated 
the  law,  and  subjected  himself  to  the  penalty.  When  the 
case  came  to  adjudication  and  execution,  the  king  and 
father,  as  an  expedient  in  the  disposition  of  the  case,  put 
out  but  one  of  his  son's  eyes,  and  instead  of  the  other  put 
out  one  of  his  own.  It  is  insisted  that  in  this  way  the  fa- 
ther and  king  showed  pro-per  affection  and  leniency  for  his 
son,  and  just  regard  for  the  authority  of  his  law.  Those 
who  reject  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  and  advocate  the 
governmental  theory  of  the  divine  atonement,  insist  that 
this  case  of  Zaleucus  and  his  son  is  a  case  of  proper  sub- 
stitution, having  a  close  analogy  to  the  divine  atonement, 
and  that  it  is  an  estimable  illustration  of  the  harmonious 
action  of  God's  mercy  and  justice,  and  of  the  substitution 
of  Christ's  sufferings  for  sinners.  But  the  case  of  Zaleu- 
cus and  his  son  has  no  analsgy  whatever  to  God  the  Father 
and  Christ  the  Son  in  the  great  scheme  of  human  redemp- 
tion. This,  the  extensive  use  made  of  the  case,  and  the 
great  praise  bestowed  on  the  conduct  of  Zaleucus  in  the 
matter,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  Christ  the  Son 
was  not  a  criminal  deserving  punishment,  and  God  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation,  217 

Father  did  not  suffer  and  endure  punishment  as  a  substi- 
tute, dividing  the  penalty  with  Christ,  and  the  case  in  no 
way  illustrates  the  atoning  work  of  the  Son  of  God.  It  is 
really  unaccountable  that  this  case  should  ever  have  been 
brought  forward  for  such  purpose.  In  putting  out  one  of 
his  own  eyes,  this  king  simply  visited  upon  himself  a  cruel 
infliction  for  which  he  had  no  authority;  the  act  at  best  was 
nothing  more  than  a  reckless  mockery  of  justice.  Penalty 
cannot  be  divided  out  between  parties — one-half  put  upon 
the  criminal  by  killing  one  side  of  him,  and  the  other  half 
,jul  upon  some  other  person  by  killing  one  side  of  him. 
This  king  had  no  more  right  to  put  out  his  own  eye  than 
he  had  to  cut  off  his  own  head.  In  sparing  one  of  the  eyes 
of  his  son,  he  simply  released  the  son  from  the  penalty  of 
the  law,  and  having  no  authority  to  do  this,  he  mocked  and 
violated  the  law  in  a  most  palpable  manner.  Truly,  this 
transaction  "  was  not  in  any  sense  retributive,"  and  "  was 
not  penal,"  and  "was  above  law;"  for  it  was  a  criminal 
transaction  throughout.  As  it  was  a  solemn  farce,  as  it  was 
a  defiant  suppression  of  law,  as  it  was  a  reckless  breach  of 
justice,  it  could  not  "answer  for  the  rectoral  office  of  pen- 
alty." Law  cannot  be  administered  by  breaking  it,  nor 
upheld  by  trampling  on  it.  Clearing  the  guilty,  however 
it  may  be  accompanied  by  blind  inflictions  upon  others,  will 
never  support  the  authority  of  law,  Avill  never  exalt  and 
vindicate  justice,  and  can  never  manifest  and  illustrate  the 
harmony  and  poise  of  the  divine  mercy  and  justice. 

It  is  reported  that  a  teacher,  whose  name  is  given  as 
Bronson  Alcott,  did,  for  the  enforcement  of  his  rules  and 
the  maintenance  of  his  authority  as  a  master,  submit  in  his 
ov.n  person  to  the  penalty  due  to  an  offending  pupil,  re- 
ceiving the  chastisement  at  the  hands  of  the  pupil  who  had 
committed  the  offVnse.  This  case  has  been  presented  by 
those  who  denounce  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  in  the  diviiu 


218  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

atonement  as  a  case  of  substitution  analogous  to  the  substi- 
tution of  Christ,  and  as  an  admirable  illustration  of  the 
nature  of  the  atonement  made  by  the  Son  of  God.  It  is 
insisted,  by  those  presenting  the  case,  that  this  method  of 
administration  adopted  in  this  case  by  this  teacher  is  well 
adapted  to  disciplinary  ends,  and  well  calculated  to  main- 
tain the  authority  of  law,  and  to  secure  from  those  under 
the  administration  reverence  and  obedience.  But,  in  all 
seriousness,  nothing  could  be  more  erratic  than  such  a  pro- 
cedure in  government  and  discipline.  Surely,  nothing 
could  be  better  for  bringing  law,  authority,  and  adminis- 
trator into  contempt  than  such  a  course  as  this.  Nothing 
could  encourage  a  wayward  and  vindictive  pupil  in  rebell- 
ion and  crime  more  than  this  method  of  administration 
here  reported.  So  soon  as  some  petty  animosity  against  the 
teacher  should  possess  the  pupil  he  would  commit  some  of- 
fense deserving  flagellation  that  he  might  whip  the  teacher 
and  gratify  his  animosity.  And  such  an  illustration  of  the 
divine  methods  and  of  the  sacred  mysteries  as  this  is  simply 
contemptible.  Would  as  well  present  as  an  illustration  of 
the  saving  work  of  atonement  some  fabled  feat  of  "  the  god- 
dess of  the  chase,"  in  bounding  over  hill  and  dale  in  pur- 
suit of  flying  game,  or  the  fabulous  acts  of  the  fabled 
Hercules  in  bearing  "  with  fortitude  whatever  gods  or  men 
imposed  upon  him."  These  theories  of  atonement  which 
repudiate  the  satisfaction  made  in  Christ's  death  were  born 
in  heresy,  and  have  been  nurtured  by  heretics — have  been 
nurtured  by  those  destitute  of  lofty  conceptions  of  the  enor- 
mity of  sin,  the  dignity  of  law,  the  inflexibleness  of  justice, 
and  the  rectitude  and  majesty  of  God ;  and  these,  the  the- 
ories and  their  defenders,  have  contributed  what  they  could 
— very  much,  indeed — in  supporting  the  speculations  which 
treat  with  contempt  the  sublime  doctrines  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  and  the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  21 9 


Redemption  is  a  subject  lying  outside  of  the  realm  of 
comparison ;  it  is  infinitely  removed  from  all  illustration. 
The  sublime  and  mysterious  work  of  redeeming  the  human 
race  rested  alone  upon  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  He 
alone  was  competent  to  the  work.  His  death  was  neces- 
sary, and  his  life  was  voluntarily  surrendered.  He  volun- 
tarily laid  down  his  life ;  he  voluntarily  died  to  make  an 
oblation  and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  mankind.  "  I  lay 
down  my  life,  that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man  taketh 
it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  I  have  power  to 
lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again."  (John  x. 
17, 18.)  Men  have  received  their  being  from  a  source  out- 
side of  themselves ;  therefore,  if  any  merely  human  per- 
son were  to  assume  to  give  his  life  to  redeem  others  from 
their  sins,  he  would  assume  to  give  what  he  had  received, 
he  would  assume  prerogatives  not  belonging  to  him,  and 
would  offend  against  the  author  of  his  being.  But  as  Christ 
was  God — the  I  Am — having  life  in  himself,  and  from  him- 
self, he  could  give  his  life  a  sacrifice  for  others  without  of- 
fending. Christ  had — as  no  one  besides  ever  had,  and  as 
no  one  else  could  have — the  authority  and  power  to  give 
himself  a  ransom  for  others.  His  infinite  relations  made  it 
proper  for  him  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  the  sins  of  oth- 
ers, and  his  infinite  relations  and  his  divine  nature  invested 
his  death  with  merits  equal  to  the  necessities  and  purposes 
involved  in  the  case.  He  had — self-existing  as  he  did — 
power  over  his  own  life,  and  he  had  authority  to  dis- 
pose of  it.  His  power  and  authority  over  his  own  life  were 
such  that  it  was  no  crime  against  the  infinite  and  just  laws 
existing  in  the  infinite  relations  of  things  for  him  to  dispose 
of  his  life  for  the  benevolent  purposes  of  human  salvation. 
He  could  do  what  no  other  person,  under  any  circum- 
stances could  do:  he  could  represent  God  and  man — the 
parties  concerned  in  the  demands  of  the  case — in  the  rec- 


220  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man  : 

onciliation  to  be  effected.  Uniting  in  his  person  the  nat- 
ures of  the  divine  and  the  human,  he  could,  and  he  did, 
standing  as  a  daysman  betwixt  them,  represent  God, 
whose  authority  had  been  set  at  uaught,  and  man,  who 
had  offended  against  the  Lord  Almighty. 

There  was  in  Jesus  a  mysterious  combination  of  weak- 
ness and  power,  and  of  power  in  weakness.  In  him  were 
the  infirmities  of  human  flesh  and  the  perfections  of  divin- 
ity. In  him  there  was  a  power  in  the  infirmities  permis- 
sive of  death.  In  all  the  universe  no  one  but  Jesus  com- 
bined in  himself  the  capacity  to  die  and  the  power  to. live; 
none  but  he  could  die,  and  by  his  own  power  live  again. 
He  died,  he  revived;  he  laid  down  his  life,  he  resumed  it; 
he  died,  he  rose  from  the  dead ;  he  passed  down  into  the 
very  dominions  of  death,  and  returned,  leading  captivity 
captive.  Having  laid  down  his  own  life,  he  resumed  it. 
He,  by  his  owrn  power,  rose  from  the  dead.  Had  he  failed 
to  rise  from  the  dead,  meager  indeed  would  have  been  the 
narrative  of  his  achievements;  the  crucifixion  would  have 
been — what  his  enemies  intended  it  should  be — the  attesta- 
tion of  his  impotence  and  of  his  infamy ;  the  claim  of  re- 
demptive, power  would  have  stood  an  imposition  and  a 
fraud,  and  the  whole  scheme  of  salvation  would  have  been 
ridiculous  and  a  failure.  His  resumption  of  his  life  was  a 
justification  of  his  claim  of  Messiahship,  a  verification  of 
the  efficiency  and  merit  of  his  death.  His  resumption  of 
his  life  proved  that  he  came  out  from  God  to  redeem  the 
world,  and  that  he  had  power  over  death  and  hell.  He 
was  strong  to  redeem  and  mighty  to  save. 

The  darkened  sun,  the  quaking  earth,  the  rending  rocks, 
his  bloody  sweat,  his  tears,  his  sighs,  his  groans,  attest 
that  Jesus  suffered.  The  Bible  affirms  that  he  suffered  for 
sins,  suffered  for  the  unjust.  Civilians  and  warriors,  friends 
and  foes,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  assert  that  he  died.  The 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  221 

Scriptures  declare  that  he  died  for  sins,  died  for  the  un- 
godly: "For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  a*nd 
revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  liv- 
ing." "And  if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous;  and  he  is  the  propitia- 
tion for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world."  (1  John  ii.  1,  2.)  Substitution, 
satisfaction,  penalty,  punishment,  appeasing  divine  wrath, 
and  reconciling  God  to  sinners — these  points,  all  and  each, 
are  embodied,  expressed  and  asserted  by  the  apostle  John 
in  this,  text.  That  Jesus  died  for  sinners,  that  he  endured 
in  his  own  person  the  penalty — the  punishment  due  to  sin — 
and  made  thereby  satisfaction  to  violated  law  and  offended 
justice,  that  Christ  suffered  and  died  to  reconcile  his  Fa- 
ther to  sinners,  this  text  most  comprehensively  and  plainly 
asserts.  Gethsemane  and  Olivet,  Calvary  and  the  cross, 
all  unite  in  testifying  to  the  same  great  truths.  No  cari- 
cature of  God's  righteous  indignation  against  sin,  and  of 
his_  burning  wrath  against  transgression,  can  destroy  the 
meaning  and  force  of  this  text,  or  mar  the  beauty  and 
grandeur  of  the  redemptive  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Man 
of  sorrows  and  the  Lord  of  glory.  Jesus  is  the  Redeemer, 
the  Saviour ;  lie  is  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world;  he  is  ever  with  the  Father  as  an  Advocate,  present- 
ing and  pleading  his  atoning  blood  as  a  cause  and  reason 
for  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  salvation  of  sinners.  The 
blood  of  expiation,  the  blood  "  of  the  Lamb  slain  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  gives  access  to  the  mercy-seat, 
gives  access  to  the  tree  of  life  which  is  in  the  paradise  of 
God. 

This  doctrine  of  satisfaction  made  to  violated  law  and 
offended  justice,  this  theory  of  a  "perfect  and  sufficient  sac- 
rifice, oblation,  and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world,"  has .  nothing  to  do  with  the  commercial  idea  of 


222  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

atonement,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  theory  of  a  price 
which  pays  dollar  for  dollar,  commodity  for  commodity. 
There  is  an  infinite  merit  in  the  satisfaction  made  by  Jesus. 
The  price  is  complete,  sufficient,  available.  The  expiation 
made  for  the  remission  of  sins  was  finished  by  Christ  upon 
the  cross.  The  offering  was  made,  the  satisfaction  was  ren- 
dered ;  the  work  was  finished ;  the  atonement  is  complete. 
The  satisfaction  made  by  Christ  upon  the  cross  is  not  to  be 
supplemented,  substituted,  nor  repeated.  The  Scriptures 
are  clear  and  comprehensive  in  announcing  these  truths. 
"  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins."  "  He  died  unto 
sin  once."  "  So  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of 
many."  This  great  doctrine  of  the  Protestants,  of  the  Re- 
monstrants, and  of  the  Methodists,  is  set  forth  in  the  fol- 
lowing nervous  wyords,  found  in  the  Articles  of  Religion: 
"  The  offering  of  Christ,  once  made,  is  that  perfect  redemp- 
tion, propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  both  original  and  actual ;  and  there  is  none 
other  satisfaction  for  sin  but  that  alone.  Wherefore  the 
sacrifice  of  masses,  in  which  it  is  commonly  said  that  the 
priest  doth  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and  the  dead,  to 
have  remission  of  pain  or  guilt,  is  a  blasphemous  fable  and 
dangerous  deceit." 

While  the  sacrifice  is  finished,  and  the  atonement  is  com- 
plete, and  the  satisfaction  is  not  to  be  supplemented  nor 
substituted,  and  the  oblation  of  Christ  is  not  to  be  repeated, 
salvation  was  not  consummated  on  the  cross.  Salvation — 
consisting  in  justification,  regeneration,  sanctification,  and 
final  glorification  of  soul  and  body  in  heaven — is  another 
and  different  thing  to  the  atonement,  and  does  not  inevita- 
bly follow  upon  a  finished  atonement,  upon  a  complete  sat- 
isfaction. The  atonement  made  for  the  human  race,  com- 
plete and  finished  though  it  be — a  supreme  remedy  for  all 
the  evils  of  sin  though  it  is — is  not  salvation  in  actual  pos- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  223 


session,  already  finished,  already  an  accomplished  fact,  nei- 
ther is  this  atonement  an  absolute  guarantee  of  salvation. 
The  atonement  is  a  ground  for  salvation,  and  is  a  provision 
upon  which  salvation  is  tendered  to  sinners,  but  it  may  not 
eventuate  in  the  salvation  of  those  for  whom  it  is  a  provis- 
ion. The  atonement  exists  in  fact,  and  is  complete,  and 
existed  finished  and  complete  at  least  from  the  time  of  the 
crucifixion  of  the  Son  of  God ;  but  actual  salvation  has  not 
even  commenced  in  very  many — many  who  now  live,  and 
those  yet  unborn.  None  are  justified  from  eternity.  The 
atonement  was  made  without  any  conditions,  and  without 
consulting  the  desire  and  will  of  man ;  but  salvation  is  of- 
fered upon  conditions,  and  is  made  optional  with  those  to 
whom  it  is  offered,  and  its  attainment  is  contingent.  The 
atonement  is  efficacious,  and  the  efficacy  thereof  is  actually 
sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  every  human  being,  but  it  has 
not  been  effectual,  and  will  not  be,  in  the  salvation  of  mul- 
titudes for  whom  it  was  made.  Many  for  whom  Jesus  died 
will  be  eternally  lost.  The  atonement  was  made  for  the 
race  as  such,  and  for -the  whole  race,  and  for  every  indi- 
vidual of  the  race.  Salvation,  consummated,  is  attained 
by  individuals.  The  atonement  was  made  for  the  race  of 
Adam,  a  complete  provision  for  the  race.  Justification,  re- 
generation, sanctih'cation,  and  glorification  in  heaven,  are 
not  conferred  upon  the  race,  are  not  conferred  upon  a  pro- 
miscuous mass,  but  upon  the  individual.  That  salvation  is 
not  an  accomplished  fact— an  attainment  already  made,  and 
already  guaranteed — that  those  for  whom  Jesus  died  were 
not  justified  from  eternity,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  Jesus, 
as  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  pleads  for  sins  to  be  for- 
given which  have  not  been  forgiven,  and  pleads  for  salva- 
tion to  be  conferred  which  has  not  been  conferred. 

In  the  progress  of  this  discussion  the  question  now  to  be 
considered  is:  For  whom  was  the  atonement  made?    The 


224  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

atonement  was  made  for  the  fallen  race  of  Adam — for  all 
this  race.  In  the  language  of  the  Remonstrants:  "Jesus 
Christ,  by  his  death  and  sufferings,  made  an  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  mankind  in  general,  and  for  every  individual  in 
particular."  The  atonement  was  made  for  this  race,  and 
for  no  other.  No  atonement  has  ever  been  made  for  the 
angels,  neither  for  the  good  nor  for  the  bad.  The  angels 
who  have  kept  "  their  first  estate "  have  not  needed  an 
atonement,  and  the  blood  of  Christ  could  have  no  relation 
to  them,  and  could  not  redeem  them,  even  though  they 
needed  redemption.  No  atonement  has  been  made  for  the 
fallen  angels,  and  none  could  be  made  for  them  by  Christ, 
for  his  blood  could  have  no  relation  to  them,  inasmuch  as 
Christ  in  his  nature  had  nothing  in  common  with  theirs. 
He  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels,  nor  the  nature  of 
devils,  but  he  was  made  of  a  woman,  and  took  on  him  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  that  he  might  redeem  the  human  race 
from  the  curse  of  the  law. 

The  following  points  are  asserted  and  defended  by  the 
Calvinists :  That  God  did,  by  his  own  decree,  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eternal 
purpose,  predestinate  and  elect  to  everlasting  life,  salvation, 
and  glory  a  certain  and  definite  number  of  men ;  and  that 
these,  the  elect,  Christ  redeemed;  and  that  all  others  are 
predestinated  and  foreordained  to  everlasting  death,  and 
these  Christ  did  not  redeem.  The  atonement  was  not  made 
for  the  race,  but  for  an  elect  company  thereof.  That  all 
whom  Christ  redeemed  will  be  actually  saved.  That  the 
death  of  Christ  on  the  cross  did  not,  by  and  in  itself,  make 
atonement  for  sins,  but  that  the  acts  of  his  life,  conjointly 
with  his  passion,  did.  That  Christ,  in  the  acts  of  his  life, 
obeyed  the  law  for  the  elect;  that  this  active  obedience  of 
Christ  is  a  vicarious  fulfillment  of  the  law,  and  constitutes 
an  essential  element  in  the  atonement,  is  as  much  as  is  his 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  225 

suffering  of  the  essence  of  the  atonement,  and  that  the  elect 
are  treated  as  if  they  had  rendered  that  obedience  them- 
selves, being,  in  consideration  of  his  active  obedience,  ex- 
empt from  condemnation,  and  entitled  to  the  reward  of 
obedience ;  and  that  because  his  law  has  been  perfectly  and 
completely  fulfilled  for  the  redeemed  by  this  obedience  of 
Christ  to  the  precepts  thereof,  God  is  absolutely  bound  to 
confer  upon  them  the  reward  of  eternal  life. 

The  scheme  of  eternal,  particular,  and  unconditional 
election  is  the  basis  upon  which  a  limited  atonement,  an 
atonement  passing  to  its  final  issue,  and  eventuating  in 
salvation  without  conditions  and  without  contingencies,  is 
advocated.  This  scheme  of  election  and  reprobation  is 
formulated  and  set  out,  and  then  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
is  formulated  to  fit  it.  The  Calvinistic  scheme  is  made 
symmetrical  in  itself,  harmonious  in  all  its  parts,  but  it  is 
under  the  fatal  defect  of  being  repugnant  to  Scripture  and 
dissonant  to  truth.  If  fidelity  to  God  is  to  guide,  if  the 
truth  is  to  be  vindicated,  if  the  form  of  sound  words  and 
the  system  of  sound  doctrine  are  to  be  firmly  maintained, 
then  these  points  here  named  in  this  Calviuistic  scheme 
must  be  rejected  and  refuted,  for  not  one  of  them  is  conso- 
nant to  the  Scriptures. 

Christ  and  the  counsels,  decrees,  foreordinations,  elections, 
and  reprobations,  which  can  be  properly  attributed  to  God 
in  dealing  with  apostate  man,  cannot  be  dissevered.  No 
election  has  been  made  of  any  individual,  and  no  reproba- 
tion has  been  imposed  upon  any  but  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  Christ;  and  no  election  is  made  of  any  individual, 
and  no  reprobation  is  imposed  upyn  any  except  upon  the 
conditions  of  the  faith  and  obedience,  the  unbelief  and  dis- 
obedience, of  the  persons  elected  and  reprobated ;  no  elec- 
tion is  made,  and  no  reprobation  is  imposed  except  upon 
conditions  involving  contingencies.  God  has  purposes  and 
15 


226  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

plans,  and  his  principles  are  immutable — never  change — 
but  he  acts  upon  alternatives,  and  discriminates  the  mor- 
ally good  and  bad,  nevertheless. 

Jesus  Christ  suffered  deatli  upon  the  cross  for  human  re- 
demption, and  made  then,  by  his  oblation  of  himself  once 
offered,  a  full,  perfect,  and  sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation,  and 
satisfaction  for«the  sins  of  the  -whole  human  family.  His 
obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  law  is  no  constituent  ele- 
ment of  the  propitiation  made  on  the  cross.  The  obedience 
of  Christ  to  the  precepts  of  the  law  no  more  atoned  for 
sins  than  did  his  immaculate  birth.  Would  as  well  insist 
that  those  for  whom  he  made  atonement  are  not  in  need  of 
regeneration,  because  Jesus  was  born  immaculate,  as  to  in- 
sist that  they  are  free  from  the  obligations  of  obedience  to 
the  divine  law,  because  Christ  obeyed  the  precepts  thereof. 
AVould  as  well  say  that  his  immaculate  conception  is  vica- 
rious, as  that  his  active  obedience  is  vicarious;  would  as 
well  say  that  his  immaculate  conception  is  an  element  in 
the  atonement  as  to  say  his  active  obedience  is. 

The  "Westminster  Confession  of  Faith"  carefully  and 
systematically  sets  forth  the  doctrine  that  Christ  in  his  life 
and  acts  obeyed  and  fulfilled  the  law  for  the  elect;  that  this 
active  obedience  is  a  distinct  element  in  the  atonement,  and 
as  essential  thereto  as  his  sufferings ;  that  his  active  obedi- 
ence was  rendered  for  the  elect,  and  is  reckoned  to  their  ac- 
count, and  they  treated  as  though  they  had  rendered  the 
obedience  themselves.  This  "Confession  of  Faith,"  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end,  keeps  this  doctrine  steadily  in 
view,  and  is  so  worded  throughout  as  to  conform  thereto. 
In  proof  of  this  doctrine  this  "Confession  of  Faith"  gives 
the  following  texts  from  the  Scripture :  "  Thus  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness"  (Matt.  iii.  15);  "I  am  not 
come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill"  (Matt,  v.  17);  "So  by  the 
obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous"  (Rom. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  227 

v.  19);  "God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made 
under  the  law"  (Gal.  iv.  4). 

The  Rev.  George  Smeaton,  of  Europe,  in  his  work  on 
"The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,"  follows  exactly  the 
"  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,"  and  advocates  at  great 
length  this  theory,  and  adduces  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  the 
same  texts  of  Scripture.  These  texts  he  expounds  to  suit 
his  theory. 

That  Christ's  obedience  to  precepts  and  his  death  and 
suiferings  are  conjoined,  in  making  atonement  for  sins,  is  not 
once  hinted  at  in  the  Bible.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the 
Scriptures  which  attributes  salvation  to  Christ's  obedience  to 
law  and  precepts.  The  atonement  is  always  predicated  of 
his  sufferings,  his  death,  his  blood.  There  is  not  a  text 
which  even  suggests  the  idea  that  Christ  obeyed  the  law  for 
others,  and  the  theory  is  destructive  of  moral  obligation 
and  of  moral  law,  and  is  unreasonable. 

But  these  texts  adduced  for  proof  by  the  "Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,"  and  by  those  who  expound  its  doc- 
trines, claim  direct  attention  and  demand  a  proper  explana- 
tion. 

"For  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness." 
(Matt.  iii.  15.)  The  act  of  John  is  included  in  this  fulfill- 
ing of  righteousness  as  well  as  that  of  Christ.  Was  John's 
obedience  an  element  in  the  atonement?  Did  John  obey 
the  law  for  the  elect?  Whatever  else  this  text  may  teach, 
it  does  not  teach  that  Christ  obeyed  the  law  and  kept  the 
precepts  thereof  for  the  elect,  or  for  any  one  else.  John 
was  sent  by  God  upon  a  mission  peculiar  to  itself,  and  was 
intrusted  with  a  special  office  and  ministry.  John,  as  a 
special  messenger,  and  in  his  office  a  single  and  true  wit- 
ress,  was  to  proclaim  Christ,  was  to  receive  and  recognize 
him,  and  was  to  manifest  and  make  him  known  to  Israel. 
For  this  he  preached  and  baptized,  and  thus  rightful  Iv  and 


228  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

righteously  exercised  his  ministry.  In  the  baptism  of  Christ 
the  ministry  of  John  was  honored,  established,  fulfilled, 
ended.  Here  John's  ministry  culminated  and  terminated. 
Here  and  now  Christ's  ministry  commenced.  Few,  per- 
haps, have  comprehended  the  sublime  glory  attained  by 
John's  ministry  in  the  baptism  of  Christ.  In  this  John  in- 
augurated the  ministry  of  Christ  and  terminated  his  own. 
His  own  glorious  ministry  faded  into  the  sublimer  ministry 
of  Christ.  The  testimony  of  John's  ministry  to  the  Son 
of  God  culminated  in  the  inaugural  ceremonies  of  that  bap- 
tism which  inducted  the  Messiah  into  his  ministry.  The 
visible  display  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  audible  voice  of 
the  Divine  Father  honored  with  the  approbation  of  God 
and  the  glory  of  heaven  the  transaction,  and  sealed  the 
whole  with  the  signet  of  divine  righteousness.  Christ  was 
baptized,  but  not  in  recognition  of  baptism  as  a  sacrament, 
nor  to  make  confession  of  sins,  nor  to  give  an  example  for 
others  to  follow,  nor  to  fulfill  the  law  in  the  place  of  others; 
neither  was  he  baptized  for  initiation  into  the  office  of  a 
priest  after  the  order  of  the  Levitical  priesthood ;  for  bap- 
tism was  not  then  a  sacrament,  and  he  had  no  sins  to  con- 
fess, and  he  was  not  giving  examples  in  the  observance  of 
ceremonies,  and  he  was  not  releasing  others  from  the  obli- 
gations of  ordinances  by  submitting  thereto  himself  in  their 
stead,  and  he  never  was  a  priest  after  the  order  of  the  Le- 
vitical priesthood ;  he  was  not  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  John  was  not  exercising  the  office 
of  a  priest,  but  he  was  in  the  wilderness  far  away  from  al- 
tars and  priestly  services,  engaged  in  a  special  mission,  ex- 
ercising a  special  ministry,  initiating  a  new  order  of  things. 
"Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the 
prophets;  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill."  (Matt. 
v.  17.)  On  this  text  the  Rev.  George  Smeaton  says:  "In 
this  fulfillment  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  the  Lord  Jesus 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  229 

must  be  considered  as  acting  in  the  capacity  of  a  surety,  or 
substitute;  and  the  obedience  in  both  lights  was,  beyond 
doubt,  vicarious.  Hence  his  active  obedience  is  for  us,  and 
reckoned  to  our  account,  not  otherwise  than  if  we  had  ful- 
filled it."  ("  The  Doctrine  of  Atonement,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  193.) 
On  the  same  page  of  his  book  this  author  insists  that  the 
righteousness  which  Jesus  says  must  "exceed  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,"  without  which  no  en- 
trance can  be  made  into  heaven,  "is  the  surety  righteous- 
ness, rather  than  that  which  is  personal  and  inward."  Such 
an  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  as  this  suggests  darkness, 
blind  guides,  and  devotion  born  of  superstition.  Accord- 
ing to  this  Calvinistic  dogma,  and  this  Calvinistic  interpre- 
tation of  the  word  of  God,  there  exists  no  necessity  for  per- 
sonal obedience  to  the  law  of  God,  and  none  for  personal 
inward  holiness.  All  such  dogmas  and  all  such  interpre- 
tations might  be  consigned  to  oblivion  without  any  detri- 
ment to  human  interests,  and  without  detracting  aught  from 
the  divine  glory.  It  was  no  part  of  Christ's  mission  to  re- 
lease men  from  obedience  to  law,  or  from  the  obligation  of 
inward  holiness.  His  mission  and  work  contemplated  and 
purposed  just  the  opposite. 

By  the  law,  in  the  text  now  under  consideration,  Christ 
means  the  moral  law,  and  by  the  prophets  he  means  the 
word  and  commandments  of  God  contained  in  the  writings 
of  the  prophets.  Christ  may  have  fulfilled  the  ceremonial 
law  of  Moses  in  some  way,  but  he  did  not  perform  the  acts 
required  by  it  in  the  place  of  others.  Christ  led  a  sinless 
life,  a  life  in  harmony  with  the  requirements  of  his  own 
law,  but  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  obeying  moral  law  to 
release  others  from  the  obligation  of  obeying  Christ — did 
Upt  antagonize  the  law  and  the  prophets.  The  moral  law 
he  never  corrected,  modified,  abrogated,  or  annulled.  He 
neither  subtracted  from  nor  added  to  this  law.  He  did  not 


230  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

fill  out  and  expand  it.  He  never  altered  or  changed  it  in 
the  least  jot  or  tittle.  The  moral  law,  which  is  a  transcript 
of  his  own  eternal  mind,  and  as  immutable  as  truth,  Jesus 
recognized,  expounded,  vindicated,  and  enforced.  But  this 
was  not  doing  for  others  what  the  law  commands  them  to 
do  themselves. 

"By  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  right- 
eous." (Rom.  v.  19.)  The  apostle  was  contrasting  Adam  and 
Christ.  He  was  showing  what  men  had  been  made  through 
Adam,  and  what  they  might  be  made  through  Christ;  what 
men  had  been  made  through  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  and 
what  they  might  be  made  through  the  obedience  of  Christ. 
The  provision  made  by  Christ  for  the  attainment  of  right- 
eousness is  set  over  against  the  corrupting  and  condemning 
offense  of  Adam.  There  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  here 
to  Christ's  obeying  the  precepts  of  the  law  in  the  place  and 
stead  of  others.  But  the  real  meaning  and  proper  explana- 
tion of  the  phrase,  "the  obedience  of  one,"  is  found  in  an- 
other passage  of  Paul's  writings:  "And  being  found  in 
fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedi- 
ent unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross."  (Phil.  ii.  8.) 
This  is  the  obedience  by  which  many  shall  be  made  right- 
eous. Jesus  voluntarily  submitted  to  death,  to  the  death  of 
the  cross;  and  by  this  obedience,  by  this  voluntary  death, 
salvation  is  offered  to  men  in  the  attainment  of  righteousness. 

"God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  un- 
der the  law."  (Gal.  iv.  4.)  This  text  teaches  that  Christ 
took  man's  nature  by  a  miraculous  conception  in  the  womb 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  that  in  assuming  this  human  nat- 
ure he  came  under  the  law,  its  obligations  and  penalties, 
that  thus  related  to  human  nature  he  might,  by  his  death, 
redeem  those  under  the  condemnation  of  the  law,  qjid  exalt 
them  to  sonship  with  God,  and  to  heirship  in  his  kingdom. 
This,  and  nothing  more.  There  is  not  one  thing  in  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  231 

text  to  even  suggest  the  idea  of  Christ's  obedience  to  pre- 
cepts to  release  any  one  from  the  duty  of  obeying  the  com- 
mandments of  God. 

In  the  nature  of  the  case  it  was  impossible  for  Christ  to 
obey,  by  a  special  personal  act,  every  precept  of  the  law. 
There  are  precepts  which  bear  on  certain  relations  in  hu- 
man society.  There  are  some  positions  in  human  society 
which  Jesus  never  filled.  Therefore,  to  the  precepts  inci- 
dent to  these  positions  in  society  Christ  never  performed  an 
act  of  obedience.  He  was  never  husband,  wife,  father, 
mother,  sister,  nor  civil  ruler.  The  precepts  imposing  ob- 
ligations and  duties  in  these  relations  and  positions  he  could 
not  fulfill  by  any  personal  act.  This  active  righteousness 
is  therefore,  in  its  own  nature,  insufficient — it  is  insufficient 
for  the  purposes  for  which  its  advocates  have  brought  it  for- 
ward. As  a  scheme  of  doctrine  it  is  too  Utopian  to  need 
refutation.  It  was  fabricated  to  make  out  the  theory  of 
particular  and  unconditional  election.  It  harmonizes  with 
that  theory,  nothing  more. 

By  many  and  various  presentations  of  the  subject  the 
Scriptures  teach  that  man  cannpt  redeem  himself,  cannot 
make  atonement  for  his  sins.  With  equal  clearness  and 
comprehensiveness  they  teach  that  Christ  has  redeemed  man, 
has  made  atonement  for  his  sins.  With  the  same  empha- 
sis they  teach  that  under  the  provisions  of  this  atonement 
God  requires  men,  in  their  own  persons  and  for  themselves, 
to  obey  the  precepts  of  his  law.  This  is  a  demonstration 
that  Christ's  obedience  to  precepts  was  not  a  constituent  ele- 
ment in  the  atonement,  and  is  not  substituted  for  the  per- 
sonal obedience  of  those  for  whom  the  atonement  was  made. 
Through  the  gospel  God  makes  to  men  an  offer  of  salvation 
upon  conditions.  The  result  of  the  offer  made  to  men  is 
contingent.  This  is  a  complete  refutation  of  the  whole 
Calvinistic  theory  of  Christ's  active  righteousness,  and  of 


232  The  Old  and  ihe  New  Man  : 

unconditional  and  eternal  personal  election  and  reprobation. 
A  few  passages  from  the  Bible  on  these  points  may  suffice 
to  establish  the  truth.  Conditions  and  contingency  are  used 
here  for  two  reasons :  First,  they  are  the  very  words  to  -ex- 
press the  truth  involved ;  and  second,  they  are  used  by  the 
"  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,"  and  so  Calviuists  can- 
not object  to  their  use  in  this  discussion. 

"Ye  shall  diligently  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord 
your  God,  and  his  testimonies,  and  his  statutes  which  he 
hath  commanded  thee.  And  thou  shalt  do  that  which  is 
right  and  good  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord."  (Deut.  vi. 
17,  18.)  "Thou  hast  commanded  us  to  keep  thy  pre- 
cepts diligently."  (Ps.  cxix.  4.)  "Whosoever  therefore 
shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments,  and  shall 
teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven;  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the  same 
shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  (Matt. 
v.  19.)  "So  likewise  ye,  when  ye  shall  have  done  all  those 
things  which  are  commanded  you,  say,  We  are  unprofitable 
servants;  we  have  done  that  which  was  our  duty  to  do." 
(Luke  xvii.  10.)  "He  that  saith,  I  know  him,  and  keep- 
eth  not  his  commandments,  is  a  liar,  and  the  truth  is  not  in 
him."  (1  John  ii.  4.) 

These  passages — and  an  indefinite  number  could  be  given 
— teach  that  God  requires  men,  in  their  own  persons  and  for 
themselves,  to  obey  the  precepts  of  his  law,  and  that  they 
are  not  in  any  way  released  from  obedience  to  the  command- 
ments called  moral.  The  law  of  God  is,  under  the  provis- 
ions of  the  atonement,  a  rule  of  conduct  for  men,  and  Christ 
did  not  obey  its  precepts  to  furnish  a  substitute  in  obedi- 
ence which  should  be  reckoned  to  men's  account;  and  he 
did  not  in  any  wise  abolish  the  divine  law  as  a  rule  of  hu- 
man action.  He  said:  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  233 


mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment.  And  the 
second  is  like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self." (Matt.  xxii.  37-39.)  In  his  final  commission  to 
his  apostles,  before  his  ascension,  are  found  these  words: 
"Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you."  (Matt,  xxviii.  20.) 

"  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  en- 
ter into  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  he  that  doeth  the 
•will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  (Matt.  vii.  21.) 
"  If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments." 
(Matt.  xix.  17.)  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
(Mark  xvi.  16.)  "Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise 
perish."  (Luke  xiii.  3.)  "  For  if  ye  believe  not  that  I  am 
he,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins."  (John  viii.  24.)  "  He  that 
rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my  words,  hath  one  that 
judgeth  him:  the  word  that  I  have  spoken,  the  same  shall 
judge  him  in  the  last  day."  (John  xii.  48.)  "For  if  ye 
live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die;  but  if  ye  through  the 
Spirit  do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live." 
(Rom.  viii.  13.)  "Wherefore,  the  rather,  brethren,  give 
diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure;  for  if  ye 
do  these  things,  ye  shall  never  fall ;  for  so  an  entrance  shall 
be  ministered  unto  you  abundantly  into  the  everlasting 
kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  (2  Pet. 
i.  10,  11.)  "Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  commandments, 
that  they  may  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter 
in  through  the  gates  into  the  city."  (Rev.  xxii.  14.) 

These  passages — and  many  others  equally  conclusive 
could  be  adduced — teach  that  God  makes,  through  the 
atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  an  offer  of  salvation  to  men  upon 
conditions,  and  that  the  result  of  the  offer  made  is  contin- 
gent. Each  man  will  attain  to  everlasting  salvation  or  ev- 
erlasting punishment,  according  to  the  nature  and  merit  of 


234  Tlie  Old  and  the  New  M<n» : 

his  own  actions.  Those  who  are  finally  saved  might  have 
been  lost,  and  those  who  are  finally  lost  might  have  been 
saved.  Those  for  whom  Christ  died  may  finally  perish. 
These  passages,  here  given  from  the  Bible,  cannot  be  inter- 
preted upon  any  other  hypothesis ;  and  these  passages  show 
that  the  Calvinistic  theory — which  teaches  that  certain  per- 
sons were  predestinated  from  eternity  to  everlasting  life  and 
glory,  without  any  reference  to  faith  or  good  works  in  them 
as  conditions  of  their  final  salvation,  and  that  other  men 
were  predestinated  from  eternity  to  everlasting  damnation, 
without  any  reference  to  unbelief  and  evil  works  in  them 
as  cause  for  their  final  damnation — has  the  infelicity  of  con- 
tradicting the  plain  teachings  of  the  Bible.  The  atone- 
ment has  been  made  that  holiness  and  eternal  life  may  be 
given  to  men.  Holiness  and  heaven  are  offered  in  a  way 
to  vindicate  moral  law7  and  perpetuate  divine  authority,  ami 
hence  the  offer  is  made  upon  conditions,  and  involves  con- 
tingencies. If  God  could  deal  with  fallen  man  upon  the 
basis  of  fate,  and  could  bestow  his  grace  arbitrarily,  he 
could  have  dispensed  with  the  atonement  altogether. 

The  doctrine  of  absolute  salvation  without  conditions  and 
contingencies,  built  upon  the  predestinating  decree  of  God 
limiting  the  atonement  to  a  definite  number  of  individuals, 
and  built  upon  the  active  righteousness  of  Christ,  hereto- 
fore defined,  is  without  any  warrant  of  Scripture.  The 
atonement  made  by  Christ  upon  the  cross  for  sin  is  a  pro- 
vision which  offers  salvation  to  all  men  upon  conditions, 
and  the  issue  is  dependent  upon  the  personal  acceptance 
and  rejection  of  the  offer.  Some  individuals  accept  it,  and 
are  saved;  some  reject  it,  and  are  lost.  All  men — those 
under  the  imperfections  of  infancy,  idiocy,  and  lunacy  ex- 
cepted — are  able  to  embrace  and  accept  the  grace  of  God, 
and  all  who  are  able  to  accept  are  able  to  reject  it  when 
offered.  The  atonement,  as  a  provision  for  salvation,  gra- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  235 

ciously  confers  ability.  Man  is  wholly  disabled  in  his  will 
by  sin,  and  by  his  own  nature  and  by  his  own  strength  he 
cannot  turn  to  God,  and  cannot  do  any  good  works,  but  by 
the  prevenient  grace  supplied  by  the  atonement  of  Christ 
he  has  ability  to  accept  or  reject,  as  he  may  choose,  the 
atoning  work  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  atonement  eventu- 
ates in  salvation  in  every  case,  when  the  individual  does 
not  reject  and  disobey  the  gospel,  and  in  damnation  in  every 
case  where  the  individual  persistently  rejects  and  disobeys 
the  gospel  to  the  end  of  his  probation.  There  is  nothing 
which  limits  the  atonement  in  its  actual  results  but  the  vol- 
untary acceptance  or  rejection  of  it  by  men.  It  is  admitted 
that  all  men  will  not  be  actually  saved,  but  the  responsi- 
bility is  with  the  individual  who  is  lost,  and  his  damnation 
is  because  of  his  sin,  and  not  because  he  was  arbitrarily  ex- 
cluded from  the  provisions  of  the  atonement.  The  final 
results,  in  which  men  are  actually  and  forever  lost,  do  not 
indicate  that  the  atonement  is  limited,  and  is  for  only  a 
part  of  the  race.  The  atonement  is  universal  in  its  pro- 
vision and  in  its  sufficiency.  The  atonement  made  by  the 
death  and  passion  of  Jesus  Christ  upon  the  cross  was  made 
for  the  human  race  in  general,  and  for  every  individual  in 
particular.  In  this  atonement  for  sins  there  is  neither  de- 
ficiency of  merit  nor  excess  of  value.  It  is  intrinsically, 
potentially,  and  actually  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  all 
men,  and  its  sufficiency  is  not  to  be  limited  by  the  actual 
extent  to  Avhich  its  benefits  are  received,  and  it  is  not  to  be 
concluded  that  there  is  any  waste  of  its  virtue  because  men 
for  whom  it  was  made  are  lost.  There  is  in  the  atonement 
grace  enough  for  all,  but  it  is  not  appropriated  in  actual 
salvation.  This  does  not,  however,  involve  excess  and 
waste.  The  application  of  this  grace,  flowing  out  of  the 
atonement  in  actual  salvation,  does  not  exhaust  it,  and  the 
non-application  of  it  does  riot  increase  its  volume  nor  en- 


The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 


hance  its  virtue.  Therefore,  it  does  not  follow,  because 
those  for  whom  Christ  died  perish  finally  in  their  sins,  that 
there  is  a  residue  of  atoning  merit  left  to  waste. 

This  glorious  scheme  of  satisfaction  and  salvation  main- 
tains all  the  principles  involved  in  the  divine  law,  perpetu- 
ates the  divine  authority,  and  properly  displays  the  harmo- 
nious perfections  of  the  Divine  Being.  It  brings  men,  in  the 
exercise  of  moral  endowments  and  in  the  attainment  of 
pure  hearts  and  holy  lives,  into  fellowship  with  God. 

It  is  highly  befitting  that,  in  singleness  of  heart,  for  the 
utterance  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  purpose  of  making 
known  all  things  as  they  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  this  subject 
of  the  limit  and  extent  of  the  atonement  should  now  be 
submitted  directly  to  the  word  of  God.  The  Scriptures 
completely  and  triumphantly  vindicate  the  position  that 
Jesus,  upon  the  cross,  made  atonement  for  all  the  sins  of 
all  men,  and  that  through  this  atonement  a  bona  fide  offer 
of  salvation  is  made  alike  to  all  persons,  wherever  the  gos- 
pel is  preached,  on  conditions  of  faith  in  its  merits,  and 
obedience  to  its  righteous  principles  and  divine  ordinances. 

"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin 
of  the  world."  (John  i.  29.)  No  device  of  criticism  can 
limit  the  meaning  of  this  text  to  a  few  men.  Here  is  a 
sacrifice,  an  expiation,  an  atonement  in  Christ  as  extensive 
as  sin,  and  inclusive  of  the  sin  of  the  whole  human  race. 

"  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only- 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  (John  iii.  16.)  Would 
it  not  be  a  most  singular  performance  to  attempt  to  prove 
from  this  text  that  God's  love  extends  to  only  a  select  and 
limited  number  of  men?  The  text  does  not  name  a  con- 
tracted love,  but  a  comprehensive  and  all-embracing  love. 
God  so  loved  the  world — the  whole  human  race — that  he 
gave  his  Son  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  thereof.  In  the  re- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  237 

ception  of  this  propitiation  by  faith  any  and  every  man 
may  escape  the  corruption  and  condemnation  which  are  in 
the  world,  and  may  obtain  eternal  life;  and  any  and  every 
man  may  despise  and  reject  this  propitiation  and  perish 
eternally. 

"  For  when  we  were  yet  without  strength,  in  due  time 
Christ  died  for  the  ungodly."  (Rom.  v.  6.)  Who  are  the 
ungodly?  Are  not  all  men  ungodly?  Christ  died  for  the 
ungodly;  all  men  are  ungodly;  therefore  he  died  for  all  men. 

"For  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us;  because  we 
thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead ;  and 
that  he  died  for  all,  that  they  which  live  should  not  hence- 
forth live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  Avhich  died  for 
them  and  rose  again."  (2  Cor.  v.  14,  15.)  This  text  is  so 
emphatic,  conclusive,  and  complete,  as  authority  for  an 
atonement  as  extensive  as  the  human  race,  that  the  quib- 
bles resorted  to  by  the  Calvinists  to  explain  it  away  are 
confirmatory  of  this  authority.  It  is  said  by  Calvinists  that 
the  word  all  is  as  often  used  in  Scripture  in  a  restricted 
sense  as  it  is  in  a  general  sense.  It  is  as  evident  that  the 
word  all  is  not  used  in  a  limited  or  restricted  sense  in 
this  text  as  that  it  is  ever  used  in  such  sense  anywhere 
else.  If  it  should  be  asserted  that  this  word  is  used  in  this 
text  in  this  restrained  sense,  then  the  assertion  that  it  is  al- 
Avays  used  in  this  restrained  sense  will  be  in  order. 

"  For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God 
and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus;  who  gave  himself  a  ran- 
som for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time."  (1  Tim.  ii.  5,  6.) 
The  unity  of  the  human  race,  the  undivided  authority  of 
God,  the  soleness  and  universality  of  the  mediation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  are  beautifully  and  strongly  portrayed  in  this 
text.  Christ  gave  himself — his  life — a  price,  a  satisfaction, 
a  ransom  for  all  men,  for  each  and  every  man. 

"  But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the 


238  Tlie  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

angels  for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and 
honor;  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for 
every  man."  (Hebrews  ii.  9.)  Jesus  was  humbled  lower 
than  the  angels  by  taking  human  nature  and  suffering 
death,  after  which  he  was  exalted  to  the  right-hand  of  God 
the  Father,  and  crowned  with  glory  and  honor.  He  tasted, 
suffered  death,  died  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  every  man  of 
every  nation  and  of  every  generatton.  He  offered  himself 
"once  for  all."  This  is  to  be  duly  testified,  and  testified  in 
all  seasons,  in  all  times,  and  in  all  places. 

"And  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins ;  and  not  for  ours 
only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  (1  John 
ii.  2.)  John  is  very  specific  in  stating  the  doctrine  of  the 
universality  of  the  atoning  work  of  the  Son  of  God.  There 
are  none  so  good  and  none  so  bad  as  to  be  outside  of  the 
provisions  of  redemption.  He  states  that  Jesus  is  the  pro- 
pitiation for  the  sins  of  the  Christians  and  for  the  sins  of 
the  men  in  the  world  not  Christians.  There  is  no  restricted 
meaning  in  this  statement  of  the  case.  "And  we  have  seen 
and  do  testify  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Sav- 
iour of  the  world."  (1  John  iv.  14.) 

Melody  and  joy  are  in  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  it 
is  heard  in  the  proclamation  of  that  salvation  which  is  to  be 
to  all  people.  Acclamations  of  praise  swell  out  upon  the 
ear  of  God  as  the  day  breaks,  the  shadows  flee  away,  and 
streams  of  divine  light  are  poured  forth  upon  the  majestic 
mountains,  and  radiate  among  the  everlasting  hills.  The 
wail  of  woe,  the  lamentation  of  unending  grief,  and  the 
piercing  cry  born  of  a  wretched  doom,  will  also  be  heard 
in  the  day  when  Christ  shall  come  forth  to  take  vengeance 
on  those  who  know  not  God  and  obey  not  the  gospel. 

That  an  offer  of  salvation  is  made  to  men  wherever  the 
gospel  is  preached  upon  conditions  of  faith  in  the  merits  of 
the  atonement  and  obedience  to  its  righteous  principles,  is 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  239 

attested  by  the  Scriptures.  That  the  gospel  is  to  be  preached 
to  all  nations  is  also  settled  beyond  any  doubt  by  inspired 
utterance.  The  results  to  follow  the  offer  of  salvation  are 
contingent.  The  men  to  whom  the  gospel  is  preached  may 
accept  the  offer  made  them  and  be  saved,  and  the  same  men 
may  reject  it  and  be  lost. 

In  the  solution  of  the  question  herein  involved,  and  the 
establishment  of  the  doctrines  herein  asserted,  the  Script- 
ures, and  not  rudely  heaped  conjectures,  are  relied  on,  and 
appeal  is  made  to  the  following  texts : 

"See,  I  have  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good,  and 
death  and  evil ;  in  that  I  command  thee  this  day  to  love 
the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his  ways,  and  to  keep  his 
commandments,  and  his  statutes,  and  his  judgments,  that 
thou  mayest  live  and  multiply ;  and  the  Lord  thy  God 
shall  bless  thee  in  the  land  whither  thou  goest  to  possess  it. 
But  if  thy  heart  turn  away,  so  that  thou  wilt  not  hear,  but 
shalt  be  drawn  away,  and  worship  other  gods,  and  serve 
them ;  I  denounce  unto  you  this  day  that  ye  shall  surely 
perish,  and  that  ye  shall  not  prolong  your  days  upon  the 
land,  whither  thou  passest  over  Jordan  to  go  to  possess  it. 
I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  record  this  day  against  you,  that 
I  have  set  before  you  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing; 
therefore  choose  life,  that  both  thou  and  thy  seed  may  live." 
(Deut,  xxx.  15-19.) 

"  Because  I  have  called,  and  ye  refused ;  I  have  stretched 
out  my  hand,  and  no  man  regarded;  but  ye  have  set  at 
naught  all  my  counsel,  and  would  none  of  my  reproof;  I 
also  will  laugh  at  your  calamity;  I  will  mock  when  your 
fear  cometh."  (Prov.  i.  24-26.) 

"Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the 
earth;  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else."  (Isa.  xlv. 
22.) 

"Have  I  any  pleasure  at  all  that  the  wicked  should  die? 


240  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

saith  the  Lord  God ;  and  not  that  he  should  return  from 
his  ways  and  live?  .  .  .  For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  him  that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord  God;  wherefore  turn 
yourselves,  and  live  ye.  .  .  .  Say  unto  them,  As  I  live,  saith 
the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wick- 
ed; but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live;  turn 
ye,  turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways ;  for  why  will  ye  die,  O 
house  of  Israel?"  (Ezek.  xviii.  23,  32;  xxxiii.  11.) 

"And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  (Mark  xvi.  15,  16.) 

"And  ye  will  not  come  to  me,  that  ye  might  have  life.  .  .  . 
I  am  come  that  they  might  have  life,  and  that  they  might 
have  it  more  abundantly.  .  .  .  But  these  are  written,  that 
ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ; 
and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name." 
(John  v.  40;  x.  10;  xx.  31.) 

"  For  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  ap- 
peared to  all  men."  (Titus  ii.  11.) 

"The  Lord  is  not  slack  concerning  his  promise,  as  some 
men  count  slackness;  but  is  long-suffering  to  us-ward,  not 
willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to 
repentance."  (2  Pet.  iii.  9.) 

"And  the  Spirit  and  the  bride  say,  Come.  And  let  him 
that  heareth  say,  Come.  And  let  him  that  is  athirst  come. 
And  whosoever  will,  let  him  take  the  water  of  life  freely." 
(Rev.  xxii.  17.) 

Good  and  evil,  life  and  death,  are  set  before  men.  Life 
and  death,  in  antithesis,  are  made  to  men  things  between 
which  to  choose.  In  the  exercise  of  the  power  with  which 
they  are  endowed  by  the  grace  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ, 
men  can  choose  either  the  one  or  the  other.  They  can  re- 
fuse the  life  tendered  them,  and  perish  in  the  destruction 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  241 

of  their  own  evil  ways.  They  can,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
own  liberty,  indulge  unbelief,  reject  the  statutes,  and  violate 
the  commandments  of  God,  scorn  the  overtures  of  mercy, 
grieve  away  the  Holy  Spirit,  forfeit  forever  life  and  happi- 
ness, and  plunge  into  the  whirlpool  of  an  endless  calamity. 
God  desires  to  give  all  men  life,  and  offers  it  to  them. 
Many  of  them  will  not  have  life.  God  would  save  them, 
and  they  will  not  be  saved.  In  this  self-destruction,  sought 
and  obtained  by  men,  God  is  disappointed  and  grieved. 
"Why  will  ye  die?"  is  God's  question.  And  this  question 
shows  that  God  is  disappointed,  and  that  the  result  he  in- 
tended is  not  secured.  So  long  as  it  is  written,  "I  have 
called  and  ye  refused,"  "  How  often  would  I  have  gathered 
thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens 
under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not ! "  it  is  useless  to  deny 
the  liberty  of  human  actions,  the  contingency  of  men's  final 
estate,  and  that  some  men  are  lost  whom  God  desired  to 
save,  and  would  have  saved  had  not  their  unbelief  and  re- 
bellion prevented. 

The  passages  of  the  Scriptures  which  name  certain  classes 
as  interested  in  Christ's  saving  grace  are  relied  on  by  the 
Calvinists  to  support  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement. 
Such  as  the  following : 

"And  she  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  thou  shalt  call  his 
name  JESUS ;  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins." 
(Matt.  i.  21.) 

"And  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep."     (John  x.  15.) 

"He  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  that  nation; 
and  not  for  that  nation  only,  but  that  also  he  should  gather 
together  in  one  the  children  of  God  that  were  scattered 
abroad.  .  .  .  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man 
lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends."  (John  xi.  51,  52;  xv.  13.) 

"The  Church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his 
own  blood."     (Acts  xx.  28.) 
16 


242  The  Old  and  the  Xnc  Man: 

"  For  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife,,  even  as  .Christ 
is  the  head  of  the  Church;  and  he  is  the  Saviour  of  the 
body.  .  .  .  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ 
also  loved  the  Church,  and  gave  himself  for  it."  (Eph.  v. 
23,  25.) 

That  Jesus  laid  down  his  life  for  his  sheep  and  for  his 
friends,  that  he  died  for  his  people  and  for  the  children  of 
God,  that  he  gave  himself  for  the  Church  of  God,  and  pur- 
chased it  with  his  own  blood,  will  not  be  denied  here.  The 
atonement  was  made  for  these,  but  this  does  not  exclude 
others  from  its  provision.  A  declaration  that  one  class  of 
individuals  has  been  redeemed  is  no  evidence  that  other 
classes  have  not.  The  declaration  that  Enoch  walked  with 
God  will  not  justify  the  conclusion  that  he  was  the  only 
man  in  his  time  who  walked  with  God.  The  sacrifice  is 
finished,  the  atonement  is  complete,  and  the  whole  race  has 
been  redeemed. 

"  Thine,  O  Lord,  is  the  greatness,  and  the  power,  and  the 
glory,  and  the  victory,  and  the  majesty;  for  all  that  is  in 
the  heaven  and  in  the  earth  is  thine;  thine  is  the  kingdom, 
O  Lord,  and  thou  art  exalted  as  head  above  all.  Both 
riches  and  honor  come  of  thee,  and  thou  reignest  over  all; 
and  in  thy  hand  is  power  and  might ;  and  in  thy  hand  it  is 
to  make  great,  and  to  give  strength  unto  all."  (1  Chron. 
xxix.  11,  12.)  "Having  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to 
enter  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  new  and 
living  way,  which  he  hath  consecrated  for  us,  through  the 
veil,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh;  and  having  a  high-priest  over 
the  house  of  God ;  let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart  in 
full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an 
evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water." 
(Heb.  x.  19-22.) 


Or,  Sui  and  Salvation.  243 


CHAPTER  XII, 

JUSTIFICATION. 

THE  atonement  is  finished,  and  as  a  provision  for  sal- 
vation is  sufficient  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  has 
been  instituted,  but  in  its  bestowals  has  not  passed  to  its 
final  issue.  Actual  salvation  is  reached  by  a  prescribed 
and  undeviating  process.  In  the  economy  of  recovering 
grace,  justification,  regeneration,  sanctification,  resurrection, 
and  glorification,  are  direct  attainments  in  the  prescribed 
process.  Justification  appertains  to  jurisprudence,  and 
stands  connected  with  judicial  sentence.  Law  is  founded 
in  the  divine  perfections.  Jurisdiction  is  given  for  the  jus- 
tification of  the  righteous.  The  due  administration  of  law 
is  itself  justification.  Thereby  truth  and  justice  are  main- 
tained, the  good  and  pure  are  vindicated,  and  the  vicious 
and  vile  are  condemned.  In  legal  requisitions  a  righteous 
administration  justifies  the  innocent. 

But  a  definition  of  justification  as  given  in  the  Scriptures 
must  be  submitted.  Where  there  is  innocence  there  is  no 
condemnation.  Those  moral  creatures  who  have  never 
sinned,  but  have  ever  been  obedient  to  law,  are  justified  by 
their  perfect  obedience,  without  atonement,  and  without 
conditions.  Justification,  in  such  cases,  is  a  sentence  given 
upon  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  creatures  justified.  The 
Bible  speaks-  of  a  sentence  of  justification  to  be  passed  in 
the  general  judgment  at  the  end  of  time.  This  justifica- 
tion will  be  an  exhibition  and  commendation  of  the  works 
and  graces  of  those  receiving  the  sentence,  and  an  accept- 
ance of  such  persons. 


Tlie  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


Justification,  the  definition  of  which  is  now  submitted,  is 
an  act  of  God  absolving  the  sinner  from  guilt  and  condem- 
nation. It  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  remission  of  sins, 
the  pardon  of  sins.  It  is  an  act  of  God  accounting  the 
sinner  as  righteous.  This  justification  changes  the  relation 
of  the  sinner  to  God,  and  restores  him  to  the  divine  ap- 
probation. Justification  is  neither  progressive  nor  partial ; 
it  is  instantaneous,  and  complete  at  once.  By  one  act  of 
God  all  the  past  sins  of  the  sinner,  to  whom  the  pardon  is 
granted,  are  blotted  out. 

In  support  of  the  definition  of  justification  here  given, 
and  of  the  character  of  the  work  here  described,  the  fol- 
lowing texts  are  adduced:  "Be  it  known  unto  you,  there- 
fore, men  and  brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  preached 
unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  and  by  him  all  that  be- 
lieve are  justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not 
be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses"  (Acts  xiii.  38,  39); 
"  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose 
sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord 
will  not  impute  sin  "  (Rom.  iv.  7,  8). 

God  is  the  Lawgiver,  Judge,  and  King  of  the  Universe. 
It  is  a  well-defined  scriptural  truth,  that  none  "  can  forgive 
sins  but  God  only."  He  who  claims  authority  to  forgive 
sins  invades  the  prerogatives  of  the  Almighty.  He  who 
claims  authority  to  grant  indulgences  to  men,  and  give 
them  license  to  sin,  assumes  to  do  more  than  Jehovah  him- 
self proposes  to  do.  Such  assumptions  antagonize  all  truth, 
involve  all  iniquity,  and  merit  endless  perdition.  The 
apostle's  admonition  is  very  forcible,  and  his  description  is 
very  explicit:  "Let  no  man  deceive  you  by  any  means;  for 
that  day  shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling  away 
first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition; 
who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called 
God,  or  that  is  worshiped ;  so  that  he  as  God  sitteth  in  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation-.  245 

temple  of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God."  (2  Thess. 
ii.  3,  4.) 

God  organized  the  Church,  and  set  over  it  teachers  and 
rulers;  he  gave  to  it  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pas- 
tors, and  teachers.  He  sets  apart  bishops  and  pastors  to 
govern  and  take  care  of  the  Church.  These  are  clothed 
\vith  authority  to  censure  and  excommunicate  offenders,  to 
clear  and  protect  the  good.  They  are  given  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  edi- 
fication of  the  whole  body  of  believers.  Law  is  adminis- 
tered for  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church.  Upon  the 
due  administration  of  law  the  usefulness  of  the  Church — 
yea,  her  very  existence — depends.  But  the  claim  in  eccle- 
siastical ranks  to  the  vicegerency  of  the  Lord  Almighty  is 
as  false  as  it  is  presumptuous.  The  authority  and  power 
to  forgive  sins  reside  in  and  abide  with  God  alone,  and 
these  he  has  never  conferred  on  nor  transferred  to  any  one 
else.  As  ubiquity  and  omniscience  belong  to  God  only,  so 
he  alone  can  so  take  cognizance  of  the  secrets,  purposes, 
penitence,  and  faith  of  men  in  different  parts  of  the  earth 
as  to  know  when  they  are  entitled,  under  the  provisions  of 
justifying  grace,  to  a  judgment  of  acquittal  from  guilt. 
The  forgiveness  of  sins  does  not  depend  upon  priestly  ma- 
nipulations, as  it  does  not  come  through  the  channel  of  the 
priesthood,  but  directly  from  God  himself. 

Jesus  Christ  has  been  set  forth  a  propitiation  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  this  propitiation  is  the  ground,  or  cause, 
of  the  justification  of  the  ungodly  who  accept  the  same  by 
faith.  For  the  alone  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  God  accounts 
men  righteous,  or  forgives  their  sins.  All  men  are  guilty 
before  God,  and  are  corrupt  in  themselves,  and,  conse- 
quently, have  no  merit  of  their  own,  and  can  offer  no  sat- 
isfaction for  their  guilt.  Nothing  that  they  can  do  will 
avail  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  There  is  no  name,  and 


246  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


there  is  no  merit,  through  which  forgiveness  can  be  ob- 
tained than  the  name  and  merit  of  Jesus.  The  merit  of 
Christ's  death  is  complete  in  itself.  Theorists  may  parade 
human  facilities,  and  magnify  human  inventions,  but  no 
scriptural  method  can  ignore  the  atoning  merits  of  Christ 
as  the  cause  of  justification.  The  blood  of  Christ  was  shed 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  There  are  methods  of  application 
and  of  administration  in  the  work  of  salvation  ;  this  is  con- 
stantly asserted  in  these  pages.  Conditions  are  instituted 
upon  which  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  to  be  applied  to  each 
individual  case,  and  without  conformity  to  these  conditions, 
and  without  the  application  of  this  specific  provision  to  the 
individual  case,  there  can  be  ultimately  no  salvation;  yet 
the  atonement  was  completed  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
is  the  sole  cause  of  justification.  As  Jesus  is  to  deliver 
from  the  wrath  to  come,  so  he  delivers  from  guilt ;  through 
him  the  grace  of  justification  is  conferred.  In  various 
forms  of  expression,  and  in  many  places  of  his  writings, 
the  apostle  Paul  teaches  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is 
vouchsafed  by  God  through  the  blood  and  for  the  sake  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

What  the  forgiveness  of  sins  has  been  in  one  generation 
it  has  been  in  all  generations.  It  was  the  same  in  the 
days  preceding  the  advent  of  Christ  that  it  has  been  in  the 
days  succeeding  said  advent.  In  the  times  of  Abel,  Enoch, 
and  Noah,  Abraham,  David,  and  Malachi,  and  Peter,  Paul, 
and  Polycarp,  sins  have  been  forgiven  for  the  same  cause 
and  on  the  same  condition.  Those  of  patriarchal  times  hud 
as  intimate  a  relation  to  Christ,  and  as  vital  faith,  and  as 
comprehensive  and  satisfactory  assurance  of  their  justifica- 
tion, as  those  of  apostolic  and  succeeding  times.  Grace  and 
spiritual  discernment,  as  well  as  law  and  carnal  ordinances, 
existed  under  the  Mosaic  economy.  To  every  individual 
justified,  in  whatever  age  of  the  world  he  has  lived,  a  full 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  247 

pardon  lias  been  granted — all  his  past  sins  have  been 
blotted  out. 

Justification  effects  a  change  of  relation.  It  inaugurates 
a  state  of  reconciliation  with  God  and  the  individual  justi- 
fied. The  justified  individual  stands  accepted  of  God,  and 
free  from  liability  to  the  retributions  of  offended  justice, 
and  that  so  long  as  a  justified  state  is  retained.  Justifi- 
cation simply  changes  the  relation,  and  not  the  nature,  of 
the  individual.  While  a  change  of  relation  and  a  change 
of  nature  are  by  no  means  the  same — justification  and  re- 
generation being  in  no  sense  the  same  work — yet  whoever 
has  this  change  of  relation  has  also  a  change  of  nature; 
whoever  has  been  justified  has  been  also  regenerated. 
These  two,  justification  and  regeneration,  always  accompany 
each  other.  They  are  no  more  to  be  confounded  than  are 
the  resurrection  and  glorification,  and  are  no  more  to  be 
separated  than  are  love  and  obedience. 

The  condition  upon  which  justification  is  granted  de- 
mands careful  consideration.  This  condition  is  uniform. 
All  individuals  of  every  generation  and  of  every  nation, 
who  are  amenable  to  requisition,  attain  justification  upon 
the  same  condition.  There  is  not  one  condition  for  one 
man  and  one  generation,  and  another  condition  for  another 
man  and  another  generation.  Infants  dying  in  infancy,  and 
idiots  living  to  adult  years,  are  justified  and  saved  without 
condition.  For  the  simple  reason  that  they  are  physically 
and  mentally  incapable  of  doing  any  thing  to  assist  or  hin- 
der their  salvation,  they  are  not  required  to  repent,  nor 
believe,  nor  work  righteousness.  They  can  neither  accept 
nor  reject  the  condition.  In  such  cases  God  applies  the 
atoning  merit  and  cleansing  blood  of  Christ  in  justifying, 
regenerating,  sanctifying,  and  saving,  without  condition. 
They — infants  dying  in  infancy,  and  idiots  living  to  adult 
years — are  entitled  to  the  saving  benefits  of  the  atonement, 


248  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

as  that  atonement  is  a  general  provision  for  all  sinners; 
and  they  are  entitled  to  those  saving  benefits  because  they 
do  not  and  cannot  offer  any  bar  to  their  bestowal  by  a 
responsible  rejection  thereof.  Notwithstanding  these  ex- 
ceptions here  stated,  justification,  regeneration,  adoption, 
and  sanctification,  are  in  the  case  of  infants  and  idiots  the 
same  that  they  are  in  the  case  of  intelligent  adults.  The 
number  of  sins  to  be  pardoned  in  any  given  case  does  not 
change  the  nature  of  justification,  and  does  not  change  the 
nature  of  regeneration.  These — justification  and  regenera- 
tion— are  exactly  the  same  in  the  case  of  an  adult  who  in 
a  long  career  has  committed  numerous  sins  as  they  are  in 
the  case  of  an  adult  whose  career  has  been  short  and 
whose  sins  have  been  few. 

The  Calvinists,  advocating  their  theory  of  immutable  de- 
crees, of  personal  unconditional  election  and  reprobation 
from  eternity,  and  of  a  limited  atonement,  teach  that 
Christ's  righteousness  is  imputed  to  the  elect  for  their  jus- 
tification. This  whole  theory  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness,  whether  emphasizing  what  is  called  his  act- 
ive or  what  is  called  his  passive  obedience,  is  antagonistic 
to  every  true  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
Christ's  atoning  death  is  the  cause  for,  not  the  condition  of, 
justification.  Existing  absolutely,  it  cannot  be  the  condi- 
tion of  the  bestowal  of  any  bounty  and  blessing,  but  only 
the  cause  for  such  bestowal.  The  atoning  death  of  Christ 
cannot  be  substituted  for  the  forfeited  innocence  of  the  in- 
dividual. Christ's  active  obedience,  in  the  sense  that  he 
obeyed  the  precepts  of  the  law  for  others,  as  has  been 
shown  in  preceding  pages,  is  a  fiction  without  any  warrant 
of  Scripture.  The  doctrine  that  Christ  obeyed  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  divine  law  for  others,  and  that  this  obedience 
is  imputed  to  those  for  whom  it  was  rendered,  can  never  ac- 
cord with  the  true  idea  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Those 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  249 

for  whom  Christ  obeyed  the  law — were  there  such — would 
not  need  forgiveness  of  sins,  as  in  such  case  the  obedience 
which  themselves  should  have  rendered  would  simply  be 
substituted  by  the  obedience  of  Christ.  This  would  be  sub- 
stitution, not  remission.  Again,  if  election  and  reprobation 
are  unconditional,  then  there  can  be  no  condition  in  the 
forgiveness  of  sins ;  and,  indeed,  the  Calvinistic  "  Confes- 
sion of  Faith "  is  conformed  throughout  to  this  view  of 
the  case.  This  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Christ's  imputed 
righteousness  for  justification  must  go  down  as  a  part  of 
the  unscriptural  theory  of  unconditional  election  and  rep- 
robation. Nevertheless,  there  is  a  real  purpose  and  there 
is  a  true  merit  pertaining  to  Christ's  death;  and  this 
purpose  may  with  profit  be  kept  prominently  in  view, 
and  this  merit  may  very  properly  be  constantly  magni- 
fied. 

No  true  theory  of  justification  can  ignore  the  loving- 
kindness,  mercy,  and  grace  of  God.  No  true  theory  can 
ignore  the  atoning  merit  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  nor  the 
divine  assistance  of  the.  Holy  Ghost.  That  Christ,  who  was 
himself  without  sin,  made  an  offering  for  sin,  and  that 
through  this  offering  reconciliation  to  God  has  been  pro- 
vided for,  and  proposed  on  stipulated  condition,  the  Bible 
most  surely  establishes.  That  God  will,  for  the  sake  of  the 
atoning  merit  of  Christ,  forgive  sins  no  one  Avho  believes 
the  Bible  can  for  a  moment  doubt.  The  divinity  and  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  are  equally  essential  in  the  scheme 
of  redemption.  That  Christ  was  "holy,  harmless,  undc- 
filed,  separate  from  sinners,"  is  a  fact  essential  to  the  work 
for  which  he  came  out  from  the  Father.  Eternal  redemp- 
tion comes  alone  through  the  atoning  merit  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God.  Whoever  is  forgiven  his  sins  is  forgiven 
not  for  his  own  righteousness,  nor  for  his  own  works,  but 
alone  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ  has  suffered  for  him. 


250  The  Old  and  the  New  M<tn  : 

Every  pica  must  be  renounced  but  the  plea  that  Chri.«t 
hath  died,  and  every  price  must  be  discounted  as  worthlv.-s 
but  the  price  of  Christ's  precious  blood.  This  Calvinist it- 
theory  of  Christ's  imputed  righteousness  encourages  a  pre- 
sumptuous and  profligate  career  in  sin,  is  boasted  of  and  de- 
pended on  as  an  excuse  for  continuing  in  a  course  of  trans- 
gression, and  in  very  many  ways  it  is  made  to  pervert  the 
Scriptures  and  dishonor  the  Son  of  God.  As  it  is, adverse 
to  the  truth,  and  tends  to  the  increase  of  ungodliness,  it 
should  be  speedily  passed  over  to  oblivion. 

Alexander  Campbell  teaches  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  obtained  by  immersion,  and  that  immersion  is  so  indis- 
pensable that  there  is  no  remission  without  it.  In  his  book, 
"  The  Christian  System,"  he  has  a  chapter  on  "  Remission 
of  Sins."  In  this  chapter  he  uses  many  different  terms  as 
identical  which  are  not  identical,  and  confounds  many 
things  which  are  quite  distinct  in  themselves.  He  speaks 
of  a  change  of  state,  a  change  of  nature,  conversion,  justi- 
fication, regeneration,  faith,  obedience,  and  immersion,  as 
one  and  the  same.  (See  pages  194—197.)  But  through  all 
this  confounding  of  terms  and  confusing  of  things  he  never 
fails  to  declare  that  immersion  is  ordained  and  administered 
for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  that  there  is  no  remission 
without  it.  The  following  quotations  may  suffice  to  show 
the  position  of  this  author  on  this  subject: 

"  The  apostle  Peter,  when  first  publishing  the  gospel  to 
the  Jews,  taught  them  that  they  were  not  forgiven  their  sins 
by  faith,  but  by  an  act  of  faith,  by  a  believing  immersion 
into  the  Lord  Jesus."  (Page  194.) 

"Immersion  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  was  the  command 
addressed  to  these  believers,  to  these  penitents,  in  answer  to 
the  most  earnest  question,  and  by  one  of  the  most  sincere, 
candid,  and  honest  speakers  ever  heard.  This  act  of  faith 
was  presented  as  that  act  by  which  a  change  in  their  state 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation. 


could  be  effected;  or,  in  other  words,  by  which  alone  they 
could  be  pardoned."  (Page  195.) 

"Thus  the  apostles,  in  passing  through  the  country,  gave 
great  joy  to  the  disciples  from  among  the  Jews,  '  telling 
them  of  the  conversion,'  or  immersion,  of  the  Gentiles.  In- 
deed, in  a  short  time  it  was  a  summary  way  of  representing 
the  faith,  reformation,  and  immersion  of  disciples,  by  using 
one  word  for  all."  (Page  196.) 

"All  these  testimonies  concur  with  each  other  in  present- 
ing the  act  of  faith — Christian  immersion,  frequently  called 
conversion — as  that  act,  inseparably  connected  with  the  re- 
mission of  sins;  or  that  change  of  state  of  which  we  have 
already  spoken."  (Page  197.) 

"  Remission  of  sins,  or  coming  into  a  state  of  acceptance, 
being  one  of  the  present  immunities  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  cannot  be  scripturally  enjoyed  by  any  person  be- 
fore immersion."  (Page  208.) 

"To  resume  the  direct  testimonies  declarative  of  the 
remission  of  sins  by  immersion,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles." 
(Page  210.) 

"  I  come  now  to  another  of  the  direct  and  positive  testi- 
monies of  the  apostles,  showing  that  immersion  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  an  institution  of  Jesus  Christ."  (Page  214.) 

"  In  Luke's  acceptation  and  time  forgiveness  of  sins  stood 
for  immersion."  (Page  235.) 

This  scheme  of  Mr.  Campbell  subverts  the  Christian  sys- 
tem, and  consequently  has  nothing  to  support  it  but  the 
cunning  craftiness  of  those  who  lie  in  wait  to  deceive.  In 
all  the  word  of  God  immersion  is  not  once  named  as  a 
Christian  work,  and  is  not  once  commanded  as  a  Christian 
duty.  Immersion  is  no  more  an  institution  of  the  gospel 
than  is  drowning.  Mr.  Campbell  says:  "Neither  praying, 
singing,  reading,  repenting,  sorrowing,  resolving,  nor  wait- 
ing to  be  better,  was  the  converting  act."  (P»ge  209.)  It 


252  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

is  true  that  praying,  singing,  reading,  repenting,  sorrowing, 
resolving,  and  waiting  to  be  better,  are  none  of  them  made 
the  condition  of  justification,  but  it  is  a  singular  perverse- 
ness  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Campbell  to  deny  repentance  a  place 
in  the  process  of  attaining  religion,  and  to  deny  to  the  sin- 
ner the  prerogative  to  pray  for  divine  clemency,  and  then 
make  immersion  the  sine  qua  non  of  justification  and  salva- 
tion. The  Bible  makes  repentance  the  duty  and  prayer 
the  privilege  of  a  sinner,  but  immersion  involves  no  duty 
and  confers  no  prerogative.  Even  baptism,  which  is  a 
Christian  ordinance,  is  not  made  the  condition  of  justifica- 
tion. Baptism  is  no  more  the  condition  of  justification  than 
is  prayer. 

No  doubt  baptism  has  been  administered  to  many  persons 
who  have  never  received  any  pardon  of  sins,  and  in  whom 
no  change  of  heart  or  nature  has  ever  been  wrought.  In 
some  cases  sins  have  been  forgiven  and  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
been  conferred  where  baptism  has  not  been  submitted  to, 
and  this  shows  that  baptism  is  not  the  divinely  ordained 
condition  of  justification,  and  that  it  is  not  indispensable  to 
salvation.  The  malefactor  who  was  crucified  at  the  time 
Christ  was  crucified,  and  who  "said  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  re- 
member me  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom,"  was  par- 
doned while  on  the  cross,  and  promised  admittance  into 
paradise.  This  was  all  without  baptism,  and  demonstrates 
that  remission  of  sins  can  be  attained  and  enjoyed  by  per- 
sons before  and  without  immersion,  and  even  without  bap- 
tism. Peter  preached  the  gospel,  as  revealed  by  the  word 
of  God,  at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  and  "the  Holy  Ghost 
fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word,"  and  they  "received 
the  Holy  Ghost"  before  they  were  baptized  with  water. 
(See  Acts  x.  44-48.)  This  gives  a  conspicuous  view  of  the 
subject,  and  demonstrates  that  baptism  is  not  necessary  to 
forgiveness  of  sins. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  253 

Not  by  circumcision,  nor  by  baptism,  nor  by  any  other 
ceremony  or  ordinance,  nor  by  any  works  of  obedience  to 
law  whatsoever,  can  pardon  be  obtained,  but  by  faith  alone 
in  Jesus  Christ.  This  the  apostle,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  argues  exhaustively  and  establishes  conclusively: 
"Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified  in  his  sight;  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of 
sin.  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God'without  the  law  is 
manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets; 
even  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ  unto  all,  and  upon  all  them  that  believe;  for  there 
is  no  difference ;  for  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God;  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  de- 
clare his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are 
past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God ;  to  declare,  I  say,  at 
this  time  his  righteousness;  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the 
justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus.  Where  is  boast- 
ing, then?  It  is  excluded.  By  what  law?  of  works?  Nay; 
but  by  the  law  of  faith.  Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man 
is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  (Rom. 
Hi.'  20-28.) 

Forgiveness  of  sins  is  granted  on  the  condition  of  faith 
only.  Repentance,  though  it  is  appointed  for  specified  ends, 
though  it  is  sorrow  leading  to  conversion  of  mind,  and 
though  it  must  precede  the  faith  of  a  sinner,  is  never  named 
in  the  Scriptures  as  the  condition  upon  which  pardon  is 
granted.  Though  it  is  necessary  in  bringing  the  sinner 
into  accord  with  the  state  which  he  seeks  and  the  law  which 
he  has  broken ;  though  the  knowledge  and  recognition  of 
the  guilt  and  danger  under  which  the  sinner  lies  are  essen- 
tial in  the  process  of  salvation ;'  though  the  sinner  must 
have  an  awful  sense  of  impending  justice  ready  to  break  in 


254  The  Old  and  Hie  New  Man : 

vengeance  on  his  devoted  head,  and  must  abhor  and  hate 
his  sin,  before  he  can  be  justified,  yet  repentance  is  no  part 
of  the  condition  of  justification.  No  man  can  have  saving 
faith  without  previously  repenting  of  his  sins,  but  he  may 
be  enlightened  and  convicted,  may  repent,  confess,  and  pray, 
and  yet  not-  obtain  forgiveness  of  sins.  Kepentance  may 
not  eventuate  in  justification,  whereas  if  the  sinner  has 
faith  he  has  also  forgiveness  of  sins;  faith  eventuates  in 
pardon.  Faith  brings  the  blessings  God  designs  to  give. 
Repentance,  humiliation,  and  confession  conduct  the  sinner 
along  the  way  to  faith;  these  conduct  the  sinner  to  that 
trust  and  assurance  which  bring  the  blessedness  of  pardoned 
sin.  There  is  a  special  grant  of  pardon  to  the  individual 
sinner  whenever  he  believes,  and  not  before.  Repentance 
is  no  more  the  condition  of  justification  than  is  conviction, 
or  grace.  In  the  same  measure  that  value  attaches  to  re- 
pentance does  it  become  important  that  its  nature  and  func- 
tions be  properly  defined.  In  formulating  a  theory  of  doc- 
trine repentance  should  be  correctly  adjusted  to  other  essen- 
tials, and  assigned  its  proper  place.  In  the  divine  scheme 
of  recovery  from  sin  repentance  is  given  great  prominence. 
From  the  time  of  the  first  generations  of  men,  and  on 
through  all  the  ages,  God  has  called  on  transgressors  to  re- 
pent. John,  preaching  in  the  wilderness,  and  Jesus,  teach- 
ing through  all  Palestine,  gave  special  emphasis  to  the  doc- 
trine of  repentance.  "Repent  ye,"  was  the  language  of 
John  ;  and  Jesus  said :  "  Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  like- 
wise perish."  The  poet  has  embodied  the  divine  truth  in 
the  following  stanza : 

"Repent!"  the  voice  celestial  cries; 

"No  longer  dare  delay; 
The  wretch  that  scorns  the  mandate  dies, 
And  meets  a  fiery  day." 

The  sinner  that  would  obtain  the  grace  of  God,  and  that 


Of,  8'ui  and  Salvation.  255 

would  be  saved  in  heaven,  must  repent — must  repent  of  the 
gins  he  has  committed  as  well  as  the  evil  nature  he  inher- 
ited from  a  fallen  progenitor.  In  repentance  there  is  con- 
trition of  spirit,  sorrow  for  offenses,  denunciation  and  re- 
nunciation of  sin.  After  all  the  prominence  and  importance 
given  to  repentance,  there  is  nothing  in  the  word  of  God 
which  authorizes  the  conclusion  that  it  is  the  condition  of 
justification.  Repentance  is  never  "counted  for  righteous- 
ness;" but  then  it  is  asserted  that  faith  is. 

The  Jews,  in  apostolic  times,  adduced  many  false  inter- 
pretations of  law,  and  defended  many  heretical  doctrines. 
To  their  hereditary  relations  they  attached  undue  impor- 
tance, and  to  circumcision,  and  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies 
incident  to  the  Mosaic  economy,  they  attributed  virtue  which 
never  pertained  thereto.  By  virtue  of  their  ritualistic  cer- 
emonies and  ecclesiastical  manipulations,  these  Jews  claimed 
a  righteousness  and  divine  heirship  all  their  own.  As  a  re- 
sult of  their  heresies  they  went  into  many  pernicious  prac- 
tices. They  boasted  of  the  law  in  its  ceremonies  while 
they  broke  it  in  its  principles  and  moral  precepts.  Paul 
the  apostle,  in  his  Epistles,  condemned  and  refuted  their  vile 
heresies  and  rebuked  their  sacrilegious  practices.  He  showed 
conclusively  that  priestly  rites  and  ritualistic  ceremonies 
are,  in  themselves,  nothing  worth.  This  apostle  asserted 
"that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but 
by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ."  He  said :  "  The  Scripture 
hath  concluded  all  under  sin,  that  the  promise  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ  might  be  given  to  them  that  believe;"  and, 
"The  law  was  our  school-master  to  bring  us  unto  Christ, 
that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith."  Paul  adduced  as  testi- 
mony in  support  of  his  doctrine  the  fact  that  Abraham  was 
justified  by  faith  when  the  promise  was  made  him  by  God 
that  he  and  Sarah  should  have  a  son  born  to  them,  notwith- 
standing their  power  of  generation  had  ceased  by  reason  of 


2oG  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man  : 

age.  It  is  evident  that  Abraham — without  having  performed 
the  deeds  enjoined  by  the  law  of  Moses,  and  without  hav- 
ing received  circumcision — was  justified  by  faith ;  for  the 
faith  which  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness  was  ex- 
ercised, and  the  justification  which  he  received  was  con- 
ferred, before  the  law  of  Moses  was  given,  and  before  cir- 
cumcision was  instituted.  Abraham  was,  by  faith,  justified 
when  he  was  in  uncircumcision,  and  when  he  was  without 
the  works  of  the  law.  Therefore  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  without  these  works,  is  true.  There  is  no 
metaphysical  jargon  in  this  argument  of  the  apostle,  and 
there  is  no  fallacy  in  the  conclusions  reached. 

But  St.  James  says:  "Ye  see  then  how  that  by  works  a 
man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only."  (James  ii.  24.) 
Does  not  this  text  from  James  contradict  St.  Paul  where  he 
says:  "Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law?  "  (Rom.  iii.  28.)  There 
is  not  the  slightest  discrepancy  in  the  utterances  and  teach- 
ings of  these  two  apostles.  In  connection  with  the  passages 
here  quoted  the  authors  thereof  were  considering  points  of 
doctrine  entirely  different,  and  were  combating  errors  of 
an  entirely  different  nature.  Paul  was  antagonizing  errors 
advocated  by  Jews  who  still  adhered  to  the  Mosaic  ritual. 
James  was  correcting  errors  held  by  Jews  who  allied  them- 
selves to  the  Christian  religion.  The  Jews  who  still  ad- 
hered to  the  Mosaic  form  of  worship  put  circumcision  and 
ritual  services  in  the  place  of  faith.  Paul  was  opposing 
this  error  in  particular.  The  Jews  who  had  renounced  the 
Mosaic  forms  and  had  accepted  the  Christian  religion,  and 
to  whom  James  was  writing,  put  a  spoken  acknowledg- 
ment of  religion  in  the  place  of  obedience,  or  in  the  place 
of  a  working  faith.  James  was  correcting  this  error.  Each 
of  these  apostles,  Paul  and  James,  as  he  was  writing  to  those 
familiar  with  the  life  and  religion  of  Abraham,  appealed 


Of,  Sill  and  S'tli'ntion.  257 

to  facts  in  the  14fe  of  that  patriarch  as  testimony  in  support 
of  the  position  he  was  advocating.  Paul  adduced  one  event 
in  the  life  of  the  patriarch,  and  James  adduced  another. 
The  case  of  Abraham's  faith,  when  Isaac  was  promised  to 
him  by  God,  served  the  argument  of  Paul  in  the  point  of 
doctrine  ho  was  establishing.  The  case  of  Abraham's  obe- 
dience, when  he  offered  Isaac  as  a  sacrifice,  served  the  argu- 
ment of  James  in  establishing  the  doctrine  he  was  defend- 
ing. Abraham  was  justified  by  faith,  without  deeds  or 
works  of  any  sort,  when  he  believed  the  promise  of  God 
concerning  the  birth  of  Isaac.  He  was  justified  by  works 
when  he  obeyed  the  order  of  God  and  offered  Isaac  his  son 
upon  the  altar  built  on  Mount  Moriah.  The  one  case  at- 
tests that  forgiveness  of  sins  is  attained  by  faith  only.  The 
other  case  attests  the  truth  that  a  Christian  life  can  be  main- 
tained only  by  obedience  to  the  law  of  God,  or  by  a  life  of 
Christian  work.  These  two  points  are  in  perfect  accord. 
Paul  never  controverted  the  doctrine  that  the  Christian 
must  live  a  life  of  righteousness  and  obey  the  law  of  God. 
In  the  progress  of  the  argument  where  he  is  maintaining 
that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  attained  by  faith  without 
works,  this  apostle  asks,  "Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that 
grace  may  abound?"  and  answers:  "God  forbid;  how  shall 
Ave  that  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein?"  And 
again,  he  gives  to  Christians  this  plain  injunction:  "Work 
out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling."  (Phil, 
ii.  12.) 

Good  works  proceed  from  a  true  faith,  are  the  fruits  borne 
by  a  living  faith.  Good  works  do  not  precede  but  follow 
justification,  and  such  good  works  arc  pleasing  to  God;  and 
while  good  works  cannot  atone  for  guilt,  and  cannot  abolish 
sins,  yet  such  as  spring  out  of  this  true  faith  deserve  reward, 
and  will  secure  reward  if  pcrseveied  in  to  the  end.  All 
who  are  pardoned  are  pardoned  by  faith  only.  All  who 


258  The  Old  and  the  X.ir  M,,,i : 


have  been  thus  justified  are  required  to  work  for  life,  are 
required  to  labor  for  the  meat  which  perishes  not,  are  re- 
quired to  labor  for  reward.  God  will  reward  for  these  good 
works  required,  for  they  are  acceptable  to  him  in  Christ 
Jesus.  Let  the  sinner  seek  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins  by 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  Let  the  Christian  be  careful  to  main- 
tain good  works,  and  lay  hold  on  eternal  life. 

"  Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence 
of  things  not  seen."  (Heb.  xi.  1.)  Faith  gives  full  assur- 
ance of  the  existence  of  invisible  things,  and  gives  power 
to  overcome  this  present  evil  world.  "This  is  the  victory 
that  overcometh  the  world,  even  our  faith."  (1  John  v.  4.) 

Faith  lends  its  realizing  light, 

The  clouds  disperse,  the  shadows  fly, 

Th'  Invisible  appears  in  sight, 
And  God  is  seen  bv  mortal  eve. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  259 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

REGENERATION. 

~OEGENERATION  is  the  theme  for  discussion  in  this 
JL  V  chapter.  Generation  and  regeneration,  though  they 
are  different  terms,  and  though  they,  as  terms,  allude  to 
different  subjects,  are  closely  allied.  "Generate"  means  to 
produce,  to  bring  into  being,  to  give  birth  to.  "Regener- 
ate" means  to  reproduce,  to  generate  anew,  to  give  birth 
to  again.  The  subject  of  regeneration  is,  as  a  Bible  doc- 
trine, connected  with  that  of  the  natural  birth,  being  born 
of  the  flesh ;  and  it  is  so  connected  for  the  reason  that  re- 
generation has  its  existence  and  its  necessity  in  birthsin,  in 
the  natural  depravity  or  the  innate  corruption  of  the  hu- 
man heart.  These  two  subjects  are  thus  associated  by  Jesus 
in  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus:  "Except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  which 
is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the 
Spirit  is  spirit."  (John  iii.  3,  6.)  One  great  underlying 
fact  in  which  the  gospel  is  founded  is  that  all  men  are  fallen, 
corrupt,  sinful,  condemned.  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  corrupt,  evil.  Birthsin  is  cognizable.  It  impinges 
the  law  of  God  as  certainly  as  does  a  criminal  act  of  a 
moral  agent.  To  the  nature  of  a  moral  being  belongs 
quality.  Human  nature,  as  it  is  generated,  or  born,  is  in  a 
state  of  depravity  and  criminality.  There  is  in  human  nat- 
ure sin,  indwelling  sin.  This  sin  is  not  something  received 
into  the  nature  by  the  recoil  of  personal  acts  committed  by 
the  individual  after  his  birth,  and  after  he  has  reached  the 
age  of  volition  and  personal  agency,  but  it  is  that  which  is 


260  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


of  him,  it  is  antecedent  to  any  actions  of  his,  it  is  the  cor- 
ruption that  naturally  is  engendered.  "Now,  then,  it  is 
no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  For  I 
know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good 
thing."  Depravity  is  inherent  in  fallen  human  nature,  and. 
this  depravity  impinges  the  law  of  God,  and  consequently 
is  as  criminal  as  any  overt  act.  This  innate  corruption, 
this  birthsin,  as  effectually  shuts  the  soul  out  of  heaven  as 
does  any  sinful  act,  and  the  soul  can  no  more  be  saved 
without  the  removal  of  this  inborn  sin  than  it  can  be  saved 
without  the  pardon  of  sinful  actions.  "  The  carnal  mind  is 
enmity  against  God."  "  To  be  carnally-minded  is  death." 
"  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  "  Except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  Jesus 
shows  here  that  a  man  is  disqualified,  by  the  nature  which 
he  receives  in  his  birth,  for  a  place  in  heaven,  and  is,  by 
that  depraved  nature,  shut  out  from  the  kingdom  of  God. 
He  is,  because  of  what  he  is  in  his  birth,  out  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  if  he  ever  enters  into  that  kingdom  he 
must  be  brought  in  by  a  new  birth.  Every  one  born  into 
the  world  is,  when  born,  defiled,  carnal,  sold  under  sin,  con- 
demned. Were  not  the  heart  sinful  there  would  be  no  ne- 
cessity for  regeneration.  Jesus  did  not  say:  Nicodemus, 
you  must,  because  of  the  many  overt  sins  you  have  com- 
mitted during  your  life-time,  be  born  again;  but  he  said: 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom 
of  God.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  The 
Divine  Teacher  goes  back  to  the  native  depravity,  to  the 
birthsin,  to  the  very  nature  and  state  of  the  race.  This 
language,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God,"  included  Nicodemus,  and  applied  to  him 
because  he  was  of  the  race;  and  it  included  every  one  of 
the  race,  and  is  alike  applicable  to  all.  "The  heart  is  de- 
ceitful above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked."  This  text 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  261 

says  the  heart,  the  heart  of  man,  the  heart  as  it  is  in  man's 
fallen  state;  and  so  the  heart  of  every  individual,  before  it 
is  renewed  by  regeneration,  is  deceitful,  and  desperately 
•wicked.  "For  from  within,  out  of  the  heart  of  men,  pro- 
ceed evil  thoughts,  adulteries,  fornications,  murders,  thefts, 
covetousness,  wickedness,  deceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye, 
blasphemy,  pride,  foolishness;  all  these,  evil  things  come 
from  within,  and  defile  the  man."  Were  the  heart  not  sin- 
ful, evil  things  could  not  proceed  therefrom.  Malice  and 
lustful  desires  are  not  acts,  but  they  are  beyond  question 
sinful,  and  so  the  depravity  inherent  in  human  nature  is 
sinful. 

Some  persons  have  assumed  the  position  that  "  nothing  is 
sin  but  the  volitional  act  of  a  moral  agent,"  and  that  in- 
fants are  not  sinners  because  they  are  incapable  of  "  voli- 
tional acts."  This  position  can  never  be  established  while 
there  remain  in  the  Bible  the  words,  "  By  one  man's  dis- 
obedience many  were  made  sinners."  (Rom.  v.  19.)  These 
same  persons  have  asserted  that  the  theory  which  teaches 
that  infants  are  sinners,  and  that  they  are  condemned  for 
Adam's  sin,  was  founded  in  the  superstitions  of  barbarism, 
and  that  this  theory  attributes  to  God  a  cruelty  which  is 
horrible  and  an  injustice  which  is  shocking  to  refined  sensi- 
bilities. But  these  assertions  are  disposed  of  at  once  by  the 
words  of  the  apostle:  "By  the  offense  of  one  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation."  (Rom.  v.  18.)  This 
passage  from  the  word  of  God  rebukes  the  heretical  twad- 
dle about  barbarism,  cruelty,  and  injustice.  All  have 
sinned.  It  is  impossible  to  include  infants  in  the  "all 
men"  upon  whom  the  free  gift  has  come  in  order  to  justifi- 
cation of  life  without  including  them  in  the  "all  men"  who 
have  sinned,  and  in  the  "all  men"  upon  whom  judgment 
has  come  to  condemnation,  and  in  the  "all  men"  upon 
whom. death  has  passed  as  a  punishment  for  sin.  While 


262  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

the  word  of  God  remains,  the  assumption  that  "  nothing  is 
sin  but  the  volitional  act  of  a  moral  agent "  is  relegated  to 
the  class  of  false  things.  It  is  true  that  where  there  has 
never  been  a  moral  agent  there  has  never  been  sin;  and  it 
is  also  true  that  where  there  has  not  been  a  "  volitional  act 
of  a  moral  agent,"  violating  the  law  of  God,  there  has  not 
been  sin ;  and  it  is  also  conceded  as  true  that  no  man  can 
be  praised  or  blamed  for  an  act  to  which  he  has  been 
moved  by  irresistible  force;  but  this  does  not  in  the  least 
affect  the  doctrine  of  sin  imputed,  inherited,  naturally  en- 
gendered, transmitted.  A  moral  agent  existed,  and  there 
was  a  "  volitional  act "  violating  the  law  of  God  before 
there  was  ever  a  child  born.  That  moral  agent  was  Adam, 
that  "volitional  act"  violating  "law  was  the  act  of  Adam 
eating  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil.  By  this  one  man,  Adam,  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  by  this  one  sin  of  this  one  man  death  passed  upon  all 
men  born  into  the  world. 

All  men  need  regeneration,  as  well  infants  as  adults. 
The  Lord  has  never  declared  that  infants,  without  regen- 
eration, are  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  any  sense  that 
ungodly  adults  are  not  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Adult 
persons  who  have  never  been  regenerated,  and  who  are  in 
very  deed  sinners,  are  nevertheless  in  a  certain  sense  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  free  gift  has  come  upon  them  in  or- 
dsr  to  the  justification  of  life.  In  this  sense  these  unregen- 
erated  adult  sinners  are  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  New- 
born infants  are  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  the  same 
sense,  and  in  no  other.  Would  as  well  say  that  adults 
who  are  wicked  are  not  to  be  brought  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  at  some  future  time,  by  regeneration,  because 
the  free  gift  has  come  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life,  as  to  say  that  for  this  reason,  newborn  infants  are 
not  to  be  brought  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  at  some 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  263 

time  subsequent  to  their  birth.  The  fact  that  God  has 
taken  the  whole  human  race  into  the  provision  of  reconcil- 
iation— has  granted  life  as  a  free  gift — is  no  evidence  that 
any  of  that  race  can  be  saved  without  regeneration.  Un- 
less infants  are  regenerated  they  cannot  see  the  kingdom 
of  God.  But  where  is  the  trouble  about  regenerating 
them?  The  free  gift  has  come  upon  them,  as  well  us  upon 
all  adult  sinners,  in  order  to  give  life,  justification,  regen- 
eration, and  finished  and  eternal  salvation.  Infants,  while 
they  are  infants,  can  offer  no  resistance  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this  work.  Where,  then,  is  there  any  difficulty? 
There  is  none,  except  in  the  minds  of  visionaries  and  her- 
etics. It  is  possible  for  all  men  to  be  regenerated.  Re- 
generation is  needed  by  every  human  being  who  has  not 
already  been  regenerated,  and  this  regeneration  can  be 
wrought  by  the  Spirit  in  every  heart  which  is  still  under 
the  reclaiming  grace  of  the  Son  of  God. 

The  Greek  word  -ahyy^tairi  is  found  at  Matthew  xix.  28, 
and  at  Titus  iii.  5,  and  is  translated,  in  the  English  text, 
"  regeneration."  This  Greek  word  means  renovation,  restora- 
tion, reproduction,  new  birth,  new  being,  transmigration 'to 
a  new  state.  Jesus,  in  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus, 
presents  the  same  subject  of  regeneration,  or  reproduction. 
In  this  conversation,  Christ  says:  "Eav  ,u.rt  rt?  ysvyrjOr]  avioOzv, 
no  duvarta  tSsiv  rr^  flaffi/.stav  TOO  0sou."  This  is  a  plain  pres- 
entation of  the  nature,  and  a  positive  announcement  of  the 
necessity,  of  the  new  birth.  Unless  a  man  be  born  from 
above — be  spiritually  reproduced — he  shall  not  be  able  to 
know  the  land  of  God.  Every  one  born  of  a  woman  must 
be  born  again  before  he  can  know  and  enjoy  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

Regeneration  is  a  change,  a  reproduction,  a  new  creation 
of  the  moral  nature  of  man.  It  is  the  production  of  new 
principles  in  the  soul.  To  say,  in  defining  this  work, 


264  The  Old  ard  (he  New  Man: 

"there  is  no  need  of  adding  any  thing  to  the  machinery" 
of  the  sinner's  nature,  "God  made  it,  and  accordingly  it  !.-; 
complete,"  is  simply  to  say  nothing  on  the  suhject  worth 
saying.  God  made  man,  and  made  him  complete,  but  r.s 
he  is  he  needs,  according  to  Christ,  the  great  teacher,  that 
which  he  has  not.  Regeneration,  if  it  does  not  add  any 
new  faculties,  and  if  it  does  not  impart  any  new  essence  to 
the  soul,  docs,  nevertheless,  change  it.  Regeneration  chang- 
es the  soul,  taking  away  from  it  an  evil  nature,  and  impart- 
ing to  it  a  good  nature.  It  does  something  more  than  give 
freedom  to  the  soul,  it  destroys  in  the  soul  evil  principles, 
and  imparts  to  it  right  principles;  it  destroys  in  the  soul 
•wrath,  envy,  pride,  and  all  lusts,  and  imparts  love,  humility, 
and  benevolence.  Knowledge  of  science  is  no  part  of  the 
grace  of  the  gospel.  To  impart  scientific  or  literary  knowl- 
edge is  no  part  of  the  regenerating  work  of  the  Spirit. 
But  this  is  no  evidence  that  regeneration  is  not  a  work 
changing  the  very  nature  and  principles  of  the  soul.  Re- 
generation is  not  a  progressive  but  an  instantaneous  work, 
and  is  complete  in  itself.  It  no  more  includes  completeness 
of  grace  than  does  any  other  one  phase  of  religion.  It  no 
more  takes  in  and  includes  in  itself  a  state  of  sanctification 
than  it  takes  in  and  includes  in  itself  development  and 
growth.  >  Would  as  well  contend  that  the  newly  regenerated 
is  full-grown  as  contend  that  he  is  necessarily  sanctified; 
and  would  just  as  well  contend  that  regeneration  is  a 
growth  as  contend  that  sanctification  is  a  growth.  Sancti- 
fication is  a  higher  work ;  sanctification  is  a  condition  of 
grace  beyond  and  above  that  of  regeneration.  There  is, 
of  course,  no  work  in  the  Christian  life  which  "goes  forward 
by  spasmodic  leaps  to  a  premature  perfection,  vaulting  over 
all  the  laws  of  growth  ; "  and  no  one  of  recognized  authority 
on  the  subject  ever  claimed  such  a  process,  and  veracity 
and  intelligence  could  never  intimate  that  any  one  ever  ad 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  265 

vocatcd  such  a  view  of  the  work  of  sanctification.  What 
sort  of  a  thing;  is  "premature  perfection?"  There  may  be 
growth,  and  there  may  be  growth  in  some  things  which  per- 
t:iin  to  the  Christian  for  many  years,  and  this  is  not  in  con- 
flict with  the  doctrine  of  an  instantaneous  sanctiiication.'  A 
]:c.Tson  might  be  regenerated  and  sanctified  -regenerated  in 
having  new  principles  imparted,  and  sanctified  in  being 
made  entirely  holy — and  still  need  to  grow  in  some  things. 
A  person  might  be  sanctified  the  next  day  after  he  is  re- 
generated, or  the  next  hour  after,  and  this  without  "  ignor- 
ing all  analogies  and  all  laws,"  or  at  least  without  ignoring 
any  divine  law  or  any  true  analogy.  Sanctification  is  a 
distinct  attainment,  and  may  be  sought  and  obtained  in  a 
few  hours,  and  when  wrought  in  the  soul  it  is  instantane- 
ously done,  and  "spasmodic  moods  and  feelings"  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  it.  Sanctification  is  the  work  of  God,  and 
is  not  an  extraneous  growth  attained  by  human  works  any 
more  than  regeneration  is  an  extraneous  growth  attained 
upon  the  performance  of  certain  good  works.  Analogies 
and  figures  of  speech,  however  arrayed,  can  never  prove 
any  thing.  They,  for  the  most  part,  only  serve  to  conduct 
wild  minds  in  the  stray  ings  of  their  heresies.  Metaphors 
are  very  suggestive  to  erratic  fellows  who  have  but  little,  if 
any,  regard  for  the  truth. 

The  text,  "Though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be 
as  white  as  snow;  though  they  be  red  like  crimson,  they 
shall  be  as  wool,"  has  by  some  been  adduced  to  prove  that 
those  who  have  been  regenerated  have  in  the  same  work 
been  sanctified.  With  equal  propriety,  and  with  equal  suc- 
cess, this  passage  may  be  adduced  in  proof  that  those  who 
have  been  regenerated  have  in  the  same  work  attained  fin- 
ished salvation,  and  have  been  glorified.  This  text  will 
prove  the  one  as  conclusively  as  it  will  the  other.  The 
text,  "  Whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall 


266  The  Old  and  the  Neiv  Man: 

be  saved,"  will  sustain  the  position  that  whosoever  calls  on 
the  Lord  is  in  that  very  hour  saved  in  heaven  as  certainly 
as  the  text,  "Though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be 
as  white  as  snow ;  though  they  be  red  like  crimson,  they 
shall  be  as  wool,"  will  sustain  the  position  that  regeneration 
and  sanctification  are  one  and  the  same.  The  author  who 
attempts  to  maintain  that  sanctification  is  not  a  distinct  at- 
tainment from  regeneration,  reached  instantaneously  by  an 
act  of  faith,  is  found  involved  in  endless  and  infelicitous 
contradictions.  In  one  place  he  says :  "  Regeneration  does 
not  remove  depravity.  The  regenerate  man  is  still  de- 
praved." In  another  place  he  says:  "When  God  regen- 
erates the  soul  he  thoroughly  cleanses  away  all  sin.  Re- 
generation removes  all  the  pollution  of  sin."  And  again 
he  says :  "  Regeneration,  in  its  sphere,  is  complete  salva- 
tion. Beyond  it  we  are  not  to  expect  a  separate  and  dis- 
tinct work  of  grace,  introducing  new  spiritual  relations  and 
conditions."  "  Sanctification  is  never  presented  as  some- 
thing apart  from  regeneration."  And  in  yet  another  place 
he  says:  "Regeneration  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  jus- 
tification, conversion  or  sanctification."  Such  contradic- 
tions as  these  are  not  to  be  accepted  certainly  for  their  own 
sake,  and  they  can  never  inspire  confidence  in  the  correct- 
ness of  the  theory  in  the  support  of  which  they  are  made. 
Regeneration  is  an  internal  and  spiritual  work  wrought  by 
divine  agency.  To  be  regenerated,  or  "born  again,"  does 
not  mean  to  be  born  again  of  natural  parents,  but  it 
means  to  be  "born  of  God,"  to  be  "born  from  above,"  to 
be  renewed,  recreated  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whoever  is  re- 
generated has  a  new  inward  nature,  a  new  spiritual  being, 
and  is  spiritually-minded,  having  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell- 
ing in  him.  The  "inward  man,"  mentioned  by  the  apos- 
tle Paul  in  his  Epistles,  is  not  that  which  pertains  dis- 
tinctively to  a  regenerate  soul,  but  is  that  which  is  com- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  267 

mon  alike  to  all  men — to  the  regenerate  and  to  the  unre- 
generate.  The  regenerated  person  has  "the  inward  man," 
but  he  has  something  besides.  He  has  "  received  the  spirit 
of  adoption,"  "he  is  a  new  creature,"  and  is  "free  from  the 
law  of  sin  and  death."  The  conflict  described  by  the  apos- 
tle Paul,  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans,  is  not  the 
conflict  incident  to  the  being  and  life  of  a  regenerate  man, 
but  it  is  the  conflict  incident  to  the  being  and  life  of  an 
unregenerate  man,  who  has  perceived  in  his  own  mind  the 
truth  as  set  forth  ,under  the  light  of  the  gospel  of  God. 
And  when  the  apostle  says,  "  For  that  which  I  do,  I  allow 
not;  for  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not;  but  what  I  hate, 
that  do  I,"  he  is  not  describing  two  men,  nor  two  selves,  but 
he  is  describing  the  struggle  going  on  with  the  one  man 
Avhile  the  element  of  righteousness  presented  to  the  moral 
perception  of  the  man  and  the  indwelling  sin  innate  to 
him  contend  against  each  other  for  the  mastery.  Right- 
eousness, when  perceived  by  the  mind  through  the  light 
of  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God,  is  beautiful  even  to  the 
sinner,  and  when  thus  seen  it  incites  him  to  serve  the  law 
of  God ;  but  the  flesh,  which  engenders  lusts,  impels  him 
to  serve  the  law  of  sin.  Thus  the  struggle  goes  on,  the 
conflict  rages,  with  the  unregenerate.  But  the  regenerate 
man  struggles  under  no  such  distractions.  He  is  after  the 
Spirit,  he  minds  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  and  he  has  life 
and  peace.  He  no  longer  cries  out,  "O  wretched  man 
that  I  am!  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death?"  But  the  Spirit  of  adoption  cries  in  him,  "Abba, 
Father!"  The  Spirit  himself  bears  witness  with  his  spirit 
that  he  is  a  child  of  God. 

Here  is  a  sinner;  he  is  unrenewed;  sin  dwells  in  him; 
he  serves  sin;  sin  works  in  him  all  manner  of  concupis- 
cence; indwelling  sin  dominates  him;  but  he  has  the  light 
of  the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  gospel  shows  him 


268  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

his  sin,  and  the  way  of  deliverance  therefrom.  Light  and 
darkness  are  set  before  him.  Good  and  evil,  life  and 
death  are  presented  to  him.  He  struggles  under  a  fearful 
conflict.  The  beauties  of  righteousness  are  attractive.  He 
desires  righteousness  that  he  may  be  happy  and  have  eter- 
nal life.  But  he  desires  the  gratification  of  his  carnal  nat- 
ure. He  loves  darkness  because  his  lusts  prompt  him  to 
deeds  of  evil.  To  take  this  case  of  this  sinner  as  a  script- 
ural presentation  of  the  case  of  a  regenerated  soul  is  to  per- 
vert the  teachings  of  the  Avord  of  God  in  a  most  pitiable 
manner. 

Regeneration,  being  an  internal  work,  changes  the  heart, 
not  the  politics,  of  the  person.  Being  an  internal  work, 
regeneration  is  not  produced  by  baptism.  Water,  with  all 
its  inherent  properties,  and  baptism,  with  all  the  functions 
with  which  it  is  clothed,  cannot  wash  and  renew  the  soul. 
Baptism  is  a  sign,  seal,  and  pledge  of  regeneration,  but  is 
not  the  regeneration  itself.  Baptism  is  a  means  of  grace, 
and  more,  but  it  neither  contains  nor  confers  the  grace  of 
regeneration.  That  baptism  is  a  means  of  grace  is  shown 
by  Christ  himself,  and  by  the  apostle  Paul,  though  neither 
of  these  made  it  an  indispensable  and  universal  condition 
of  salvation.  "Jesus  answered,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
thee,  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  (John  iii.  5.) 
"Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but 
according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  re- 
generation, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Titus  iii. 
5.)  Christ,  by  "water,"  and  Paul,  by  "washing,"  mean 
baptism.  Baptism,  the  assertion  of  some  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  was  in  existence  as  an  ordinance  when 
Christ  was  teaching  in  the  earth.  John  the  Baptist  and 
the  disciples  of  Christ  had  baptized  many  previous  to  the 
date  of  Christ's  conversation  with  Nicodemus.  If  the  word 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  200 

"  wash,"  when  it  is  used  in  some  places  in  the  Scriptures, 
does  refer  to  the  work  performed  by  the  direct  agency  of 
God,  it  does  not  follow  as  an  inevitable  conclusion  that 
baptize  never  means  to  wash.  The  word  "baptize"  means 
to  wash,  and  the  Bible,  in  many  forms,  speaks  of  baptism 
as  washing,  and  in  one  place  the  charge  is  given :  "  Be  bap- 
tized, and  wash  away  thy  sins.""  But  the  water  of  baptism 
washes  away  sins  only  sacramentally,  ceremonially,  sym- 
bolically. Why  should  water  be  chosen  as  the  element 
used  in  baptism?  Because  it  has  cleansing  properties,  and 
in  its  use  the  sacrament  is  emblematical  of  the  internal 
cleansing  which  it  signifies,  or  of  which  it  is  a  sign.  Bap- 
tism has  a  sacramental  power,  and  sacramental  authority, 
not  because  of  the  pristine  origin  of  water,  not  because 
there  is  any  divine  element  in  water,  but  because  God  in- 
stituted baptism  a  sacrament.  There  is  not  a  divine  ele- 
ment in  water  any  more  than  there  is  a  divine  element  in 
sand,  or  in  clay,  but  there  is  a  divine  element  in  baptism 
because  God  has  instituted  it  a  sacrament  in  his  Church. 
Baptism  can  never  wash  sin  from  the  conscience,  can  never 
regenerate  and  purify  the  heart,  but  it  is  a  divine  ordinance, 
it  is  a  sacred  washing,  nevertheless.  Let  the  efficacy  of 
water  baptism  be  properly  defined  and  clearly  comprehend- 
ed, and  there  need  be  no  confusion  on  the  subject  of  its 
agency  and  power  in  the  work  of  regeneration.  The  soul, 
before  it  can  be  saved,  must  be  washed  and  renewed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Should  Christendom  bring  into  direct  manip- 
ulations all  her  agencies,  and  concentrate  all  her  rites  and 
cf:remonies  upon  the  regeneration  of  a  soul,  the  effort  would 
be  as  futile  as  would  be  the  effort  to  create  a  world,  or  make 
a  God.  It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  men  are  alto- 
gether passive  in  the  work  of  regeneration,  and  that  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  Church,  have  nothing  to  do  with  their  salva- 


270  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

tion.  It  is  true:  "The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of 
Adam  is  such  that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by 
his  own  natural  strength  and  works,  to  faith,  and  calling 
upon  God ;  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  good  works, 
pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God 
by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a  good  will,  and 
working  with  us,  when  we  have  that  good  will."  Men, 
though  fallen,  and  in  themselves  helpless,  can,  by  the  pre- 
venient  grace  which  they  have  received  through  Jesus 
Christ,  cooperate  in  the  work  of  their  salvation.  All  men 
are  endowed  with  moral  agency,  and  have  the  ability  to 
accept  or  reject  the  gospel.  Prevenieut  grace,  grace  which 
goes  before  regeneration,  has  been  conferred  upon  all  men 
through  Jesus  Christ.  This  grace  assists  the  will,  so  that 
all  men  are  responsible  agents,  and  the  attainment  of  salva- 
tion, as  well  as  its  rejection,  is  possible  to  them.  Through 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  due  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  as  well  as  through  the  many  agencies  and 
means  of  grace  which  are  in  operation,  God  calls  responsi- 
ble men  to  repentance  and  faith.  He  calls  them  to  obtain 
salvation  through  Jesus  Christ.  "  For  the  grace  of  God 
that  bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared  to  all  men,  teaching 
us  that,  denying  ungodliness  and  wordly  lusts,  we  should 
live  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly,  in  this  present  world ; 
looking  for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing  of 
the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ;  who  gave  him- 
self for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and 
purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good 
works."  (Titus  ii.  11-14.)  "For  this  is  good  and  accept- 
able in  the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour;  who  will  have  all 
men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth."  (1  Tim.  ii.  3,  4.) 

These  passages  of  the  divine  word  abound  with  assurance 
that  grace  and  light  through  Jesus  Christ  have  been  given 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  271 

to  all  men,  and  that  men  are  made  responsible  to  God,  the 
Judge  of  all,  for  their  conduct,  and  that  they  are  to  be  work- 
ers togther  with  God  in  the  achievement  of  their  salvation. 
The  man   described  by  the  apostle  Paul  with  such  per- 
spicuity in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans,  and  to  which 
allusion  has  already  been  made,  testifies  to  the  doctrine  of 
prevenient  grace,  and  that  the  gospel  produces  effects  upon 
un regenerate  men.     This  man  was  one  enlightened  by  the 
law  and  Spirit  of  God — one  who  had  been  awakened  and 
convicted.     He  saw  the  truth,  and  trembled  at  the  fearful 
doom  depicted  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  'God.     The  light 
of  the  grace  of  God  had  shone  into  his  heart.      He  con- 
sented to  the  teachings  and  requirements  of  the  divine  law. 
He  acknowledged  that  the  law  is  good,  just,  and  right.    But 
with  all  he  does  not  consent  to  do  that  which  he  himself  al- 
lows to  be  properly  demanded  of  him.     Indwelling  sin  dom- 
inates him,  and  he  fails  to  do  that  which  he  allows  to  be 
right  and  just.     Nevertheless,  he  has  the  grace,  light,  and 
conviction  which,  if  followed,  will  eventuate  in  his  regen- 
eration and  salvation.     This  very  man,  struggling  under 
the  bondage  of  indwelling  sin,  consenting  to  the  law  that  it 
is  just,  and  desiring  the  blessings  which  come  through  God's 
righteous  methods,   witnesses  that  even  the  unregenerate 
have  grace  and  light  sufficient  to  be  responsible  agents,  and 
grace  and  light  sufficient  to  save  them,  provided  they  re- 
nounce their  sins  and  accept  the  gospel  blessings  upon  the 
conditions  prescribed.     Men  hear  the  word  of  truth,  the 
gospel  of  salvation;  they  implicitly  believe  the  word,  they 
unreservedly  trust  in  Christ,  and  are  sealed  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  promise.     Men  are  saved  by  grace,  are  quickened 
and  saved  by  God,  but  it  is  through  faith.     Christians  arc 
God's  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus,  but  they  are 
created  in  Christ  Jesus  that  they  should  walk  in  good  works, 
for  so  has  God  ordained.     Conviction,  confession,  and  re- 


272  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

pentance  precede  faith,  and  faith  precedes  regeneration. 
The  regeneration  is  wrought  by  God,  but  the  confession,  re- 
pentance, and  faith  are  the  acts  of  the  man  regenerated. 
While  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  cannot  regenerate  the 
soul,  their  administration  and  reception  may  be  beneficial, 
and  as  the  sacraments  and  ordained  agencies  of  the  gospel, 
they  may  aid  in  the  work.  Baptism  is  a  means  of  grace, 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  is  none  the  less  so,  and  the  influence 
and  benefits  of  these  sacraments  are  more  and  greater  than 
ordinary  means  of  grace.  - 

Some  have  maintained  that  in  order  to  produce  that 
amendment  of  the  heart  called  regeneration,  nothing  is 
requisite  but  to  put  the  body  in  a  sound  state  by  the  power 
of  physic,  and  set  truth  and  falsehood,  virtue  and  vice,  be- 
fore the  understanding  and  the  will  in  such  clearness  and 
distinctness  that  their  nature  and  properties  may  be  cor- 
rectly apprehended.  The  whole  work  has  been  accredited 
to  the  influence  of  the  written  vord  of  God,  operating  on 
the  human  mind  in  the  same  manner  as  any  ordinary  truth. 
Flagellations  and  washings  of  the  body  have  been  resorted 
to  as  the  means  for  attaining  the  end  sought.  But  neither 
flagellations  of  the  body,  however  severe,  nor  wrashings 
thereof,  however  thorough,  nor  applications  of  physic,  how- 
ever cautiously  and  skillfully  administered,  for  setting  the 
body  in  a  good  habit,  can  effect  a  change  of  the  heart.  It 
is  ridiculous,  impious,  and  sacrilegious  to  do  such  things  in 
the  name  of  religion.  Such  heretical  performances  outrage 
all  simplicity  of  doctrine  and  all  purity  of  thought,  and 
put  to  the  rack  reason  and  common  sense.  Credulity,  fond- 
ness of  novelty,  presumption  and  vanity,  must  be  ruling 
elements  in  the  composition  of  those  who  advocate  such 
things  in  the  name  of  Christianity.  These  persons  abound 
more  in  supercilious  ambiguities  than  in  sagacity  and  ve- 
racity. Their  methods  are  visionary  and  arbitrary  rather 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  273 

than  logical  and  philosophical,  and  even  their  zeal  is  only 
less  contemptible  than  their  pomposity  and  their  self-suffi- 
ciency. True  benevolence  and  sublime  virtue  can  never  be" 
found  associated  with  such  men  and  such  doctrines. 

Man,  though  possessed  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  of  sacra- 
ments and  ordinances,  is  impotent.  The  Ethiopian  cannot 
change  his  skin,  nor  the  leopard  his  spots ;  no  more  can  a 
man  who  is  accustomed  to  do  evil  change  his  nature.  Su- 
perhuman power  is  necessary  to  effect  the  moral  change 
called  regeneration.  The  Holy  Ghost  can  do  the  work. 
He  knows  all  truth,  he  is  the  author  and  master  of  all  mys- 
teries, and  he  has  all  power,  so  that  he  can  do  all  things 
necessary  to  the  renovation  and  renewal  of  the  human 
heart.  He  is  not  simply  an  influence,  an  operation,  a  qual- 
ity, or  a  power,  he  is  a  being,  having  life  in  and  of  himself. 
He  is  God.  He  is  omnipresent,  omniscient,  and  omnipo- 
tent. Glory  and  majesty  are  his.  Inexhaustible  resources 
arc  inherent,  and  he  does  whatsoever  he  pleases.  He  hath 
not  only  "garnished  the  heavens,"  he  hath  created  them. 
He  "  by  his  strength  setteth  fast  the  mountains,"  and  "  he 
taketh  up  the  isles  as  a  very  little  thing ; "  he  made  "  the 
highest  part  of  the  dust  of  the  world."  "He  stretcheth 
out  the  north  over  the  empty  place,  and  hangeth  the  earth 
upon  nothing."  Mighty  signs  and  wonders  have  been 
wrought  by  him.  Even  devils,  with  all  their  stratagems, 
treacheries,  malignity,  and'violcnce,  are  subject  to  his  power 
and  under  his  control,  and  he  drives  them  forth  at  will. 
How  pure  and  lovely  and  gentle  is  the  Holy  Spirit !  He 
moves  "  upon  the  face  of  the  waters"  now,  then  he  descends 
like  a  dove,  and  yet  again  appears  in  the  form  of  tongues 
of  fire.  When  the  Spirit  enters  the  human  heart,  he  enters 
not  by  force,  nor  in  rudeness,  but  gently,  peaceably.  When 
the  Spirit  enters  the  human  heart  in  regenerating  power,  he 
destroys  in  that  heart  "  the  body  of  sin,"  and  implants  the 
18 


274  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

principles  of  righteousness  and  imparts  the  image  of  God. 
For  as  many  as  have  "the  Spirit  of  Christ  are  his,"  and 
"as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons 
of  God."  When  this  work  of  imparting  righteous  princi- 
ples to  the  soul  is  wrought,  and  this  high  state  of  being  the 
sons  of  God  is  conferred,  thereto  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  is 
given.  The  testimony  given  the  spirit  of  the  child  of  God 
is  intelligible  and  satisfactory.  What  this  witness  of  the 
Spirit  is  every  child  of  God  understands  in  his  own  heart, 
and  without  any  communications  and  instructions  from  any 
other  source.  The  subject  of  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  is 
one  of  profound  importance,  and  it  should  be  treated  with 
the  gravest  consideration.  It  is  a  subject  upon  which  the 
Scriptures  have  spoken  clearly  and  exhaustively,  and  as  a 
dogma  information  concerning  it  can  be  obtained  only  from 
the  Scriptures.  No  scientific  discovery  nor  philosophical 
investigation  can  bring  any  knowledge  or  help  to  any  un- 
derstanding of  the  doctrine.  The  subject  is  as  distinct 
from  and  independent  of  nature  and  nature's  laws  as  is 
God  himself.  Would  as  well  undertake  to  discover  God 
and  his  perfections  by  mathematical  processes  as  to  endeav- 
or to  learn  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit's  testimony  to  the  hu- 
man heart  from  nature's  teachings,  or  from  the  order  of 
natural  things.  It  is  a  subject  too  profound  for  mere  logic, 
and  it  isv  too  sublime  for  the  ornamentations  of  ordinary 
rhetoric,  though  it  must  not  be  treated  illogically,  nor  pre- 
sented in  naked  deformity.  It  would  be  proper,  should  a 
logical  statement  of  the  subject  be  attempted,  to  set  it  forth 
in  the  following  manner:  What  the  Scriptures  teach  is 
true;  the  Scriptures  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  witness  of 
the  Spirit;  therefore  the  doctrine  of  the  witness  of  the  Spirit 
is  true.  It  must  be  admitted  that  God  can  communicate 
truths  and  principles  to  men,  and  that  he  has  communicated 
a  knowledge  of  divine  things  to  them,  or  the  claims  of  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  275 

Christian  religion  to  respectful  consideration  must  be  de- 
nied. The  Spirit  of  God  communicates  to  intelligent  moral 
beings,  and  the  human  consciousness  tests  and  attests  the 
communications  and  revelations.  In  proof  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  can  and  does  communicate  with  men,  and  make 
known  to  them  the  things  of  God,  a  few  of  the  many  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  bearing  on  the  point  may  be  given.  The 
premise  in  the  syllogism  given  above,  which  by  the  laws  of 
logic  needs  to  be  proved,  will  be  also  established  by  these 
passages : 

"For  David  himself  said  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  The  Lord 
said  to  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right-hand,  till  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool."  (Mark  xii.  36.)  "But  when 
they  shall  lead  you,  and  deliver  you  up,  take  no  thought 
beforehand  what  ye  shall  speak,  neither  do  ye  premeditate ; 
but  whatsoever  shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour,  that  speak 
ye ;  for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Mark 
xiii.  11.)  "And  Elizabeth  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  she  spake  out  Avith  a  loud  voice."  "And  his  father 
Zacharias  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  prophesied." 
(Luke  i.  41,  42,  67.)  "And  it  was  revealed  unto  him  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  that  he  should  not  see  death  before  he  had 
seen  the  Lord's  Christ."  (Luke  ii.  26.)  "  For  the  Holy 
Ghost  shall  teach  you  in  the  same  hour  what  ye  ought  to 
say."  (Luke  xii.  12.)  "After  that  he  through  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  given  commandments  unto  the  apostles  whom  he 
had  chosen."  (Acts  i.  2.)  "  Which  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
the  mouth  of  David  spake  before  concerning  Judas." 
(Acts  i.  16.)  "Then  Peter,  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
said  unto  them."  (Acts  iv.  8.)  "And  we  are  his  witnesses 
of  these  things;  and  so  is  also  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  God 
hath  given  to  them  that  obey  him."  (Acts  v.  32.)  "  Well 
spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our  fa- 
thers." (Acts  xxviii.  25.)  "  Because  the  love  of  God  is 


276  The  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  giv- 
en unto  us."  (Rom.  v.  5.)  "My  conscience  also  beating 
me  witness  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Horn.  ix.  1.)  "  AYhich 
things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom 
teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth."  (1  Cor.  ii. 
13.)  "Whereof  the  Holy  Ghost  also  is  a  witness  to  us." 
(Heb.  x.  15.)  "For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by 
the  will  of  man ;  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  (2  Pet.  i.  21.) 

These  passages  from  the  divine  record  establish  the  points 
for  which  they  are  brought,  and  they  show  that  men  have 
received  from  the  Holy  Ghost  the  words  and  will  of  God ; 
and  also  that  they  have  imparted  to  them,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  communications,  graces,  and  assurances  which  do 
not  otherwise  belong  to  them,  and  which  are  not  conferred 
through  other  agencies.  This  is  an  end  to  all  controversy 
as  to  the  possibility  of  making  such  communications,  and  as 
to  the  fact  that  they  are  so  made.  Then  there  are  other 
passages  which  might  be  given,  showing  that  the  Spirit  as- 
sociates with  and  assists  the  Christian,  such  as:  "Likewise 
the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmities;  for  we  know  not 
what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought;  but  the  Spirit  itself 
maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which  cannot  be 
uttered."  (Rom.  viii.  26.)  But  there  is  one  passage  so  di- 
rect and  conclusive  that  others  are  really  not  needed  to 
help  to  an  understanding, of  the  subject:  "For  ye  have  not 
received  the  spirit  of  bondage  again  to  fear;  but  ye  have 
received  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba, 
Father.  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that 
we  are  the  children  of  God."  (Rom.  viii.  15,  16.)  This 
text  and  the  doctrine  it  teaches  cannot  be  misunderstood, 
however  men  may  pervert  the  same.  The  Spirit  has  been 
received  by  the  Christian.  The  testimony  given  is  given 
by  the  Spirit  himself,  not  by  nor  through  some  one  else,  or 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  Ill 


by  some  other  agent,  or  agency.  The  testimony  is  given 
directly  to  the  spirit  of  the  Christian.  Thoughts,  ideas,  and 
truths  cannot  be  deposited  in  vacuity.  These  are  lodged 
with  a  thinking  being,  and  are  conveyed  from,  one  intelli- 
gent being  to  another.  It  is  impossible  for  that  which  is 
to  be  communicated  from  God  to  a  human  spirit  to  be  first 
an  isolated  deposit  laid  in  vacuity  to  be  afterward  taken 
up  and  transmitted  to  the  spirit  for  whom  it  was  intended 
by  some  third  party  deputized  therefor.  Intermediate 
agents  and  intervening  channels  are  certainly  not  needed 
in  bearing  testimony  to  the  children  of  God  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  But  the  apostle  has  settled  the  question.  He  says : 
"The  Spirit  himself  beareth  witness  [not  by  the  word,  not 
by  some  one  else,  but]  with  our  spirit."  And  then  he 
bears  witness,  not  to  something  of  a  vague  or  of  a  general 
nature,  but  to  the  special  fact  that  the  individual  is  a 
child  of  God.  The  Spirit  may  not  speak  in  audible  tones, 
but  he  imparts  the  information,  nevertheless ;  and  it  is  as 
satisfactorily  done  as  if  done  in  audible  tones.  Neither  the 
sound  of  the  earthquake,  nor  the  roar  of  the  sea,  nor  the 
noise  of  the  storm,  nor  the  voice  of  the  thunder,  is  essential 
to  the  Holy  Ghost  in  making  communications  of  truth  to 
the  spirits  of  the  children  of  God. 

"Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God." 
Sanctification,  like  regeneration,  is  wrought  in  the  human 
heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  holiness  imparted  to  the 
soul  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  Holiness  is  a  quality.  Holiness 
of  heart  is  a  quality  or  state  of  heart  in  which  there  is  no 
sin,  no  corruption,  no  impurity.  It  does  not  consist  in  be- 
ing consecrated  to  some  calling,  or  office,  through  some  ec- 
clesiastical manipulations.  Sanctifying  is  sometimes  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible  as  separating  from  common  uses  and  set- 
ting apart  to  sacred  purposes.  But  holiness  is  a  state 
conferred  upon  the  child  of  God  by  cleansing  the  moral 


278  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

nature  from  sin,  from  indwelling  sin,  from  all  impurity  of 
soul,  by  the  sanctifying  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This 
holiness  is  not  constituted  of  repentance,  nor  of  faith,  nor 
of  any  act,  however  good  the  act.  He  who  has  been  made 
holy  has  repented,  has  obtained  precious  faith,  loves  God, 
is  adorned  outwardly  with  all  the  graces  of  the  gospel,  and 
conforms  all  his  conduct  to  the  perfect  law  of  God.  These 
— faith,  love,  obedience,  humility,  and  meekness — may  flow 
from  holiness,  and  may  be  evidences  of  its  existence  in  the 
heart,  but  they  do  not  constitute  the  holiness  itself.  Holi- 
ness is  a  quality  in  the  sanctified  heart,  in  the  perfect  Chris- 
tian, just  as  malleability  is  a  property  of  gold,  or  brittleness 
is  a  property  of  glass.  The  Christian  who  has  been  sancti- 
fied is  perfect,  even  as  God,  his  Father  in  heaven,  is  perfect. 
And  still  there  is  a  difference  in  the  holiness  of  God  and 
the  holiness  of  a  perfect  Christian.  In  God,  holiness  has 
never  been  acquired ;  it  is  one  thing  which  belongs  essen- 
tially to  him.  In  the  perfect  Christian,  holiness  has  been 
inwrought  through  sanctification  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In 
God,  holiness  exists  in  that  degree  which  pertains  only  to  a 
divine  being.  In  the  perfect  Christian,  holiness  exists  in 
that  degree  which  belongs  to  a  perfect  man.  As  a  quality, 
holiness  is  the  same  in  the  perfect  Christian  that  it  is  in 
God,  but  the  degree  of  holiness  in  God  exceeds  the  degree 
of  it  in  man  as  much  as  God  excels  the  man ;  and  in  this 
the  words  of  Hannah  are  true :  "  There  is  none  holy  as  the 
Lord ;  for  there  is  none  besides  thee."  (1  Sam.  ii.  2.) 

This  holiness  is  attainable  in  this  life.  It  must  be  seen  red 
before  departing  from  this  life  as  a  qualification  for  admis- 
sion into  the  final  and  eternal  inheritance.  To  all  who 
seek  it,  it  is  promised,  and  all  are  admonished  to  follow 
after  and  obtain  it.  "  Follow  peace  with  all  men,  and  holi- 
liness,  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  (Heb. 
xii.  14.)  "  Put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  279 

in  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  (Eph.  iv.  24.)  "For 
God  hath  not  called  us  unto  uncleanness,  but  unto  holi- 
ness." (1  Thess.  iv.  7.)  "  Be  ye  holy;  for  I  am  holy."  (1 
Pet.  i.  16.)  "And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you 
wholly ;  and  I  pray  God  your  whole  spirit  and  soul  and 
body  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord 
.Tesus  Christ."  (1  Thess.  v.  23.) 

Multiplied  quotations  might  be  given  bearing  on  the  sub- 
ject, but  quotations  interminable  are  not  necessary.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  asserts  that  for  their  "  profit,"  and 
to  the  end  that  they  "  might  be  partakers  of  his  holiness," 
those  "  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth,  and  scourgeth 
every  son  whom  he  receiveth."  The  apostle  Peter,  in  his 
Second  Epistle,  teaches  that  to  those  who  have  obtained 
"  precious  faith  "  are  given  "  exceeding  great  and  precious 
promises,"  in  order  that  they  might  through  these  "  be  par- 
takers of  the  divine  nature,  having  escaped  the  corruption 
that  is  in  the  wprld  through  lust." 

The  pure  in  heart,  the  sanctified,  the  perfect,  have  access 
to  God,  commune  with  him,  love  him  with  all  the  heart, 
and  obey  him  with  all  the  soul  and  strength.  These  sanc- 
tified Christians  love  one  another  sincerely.  "  Seeing  ye 
have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth  through  the 
Spirit  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the  brethren,  see  that  ye  love 
one  another  with  a  pure  heart  fervently."  (1  Pet.  i.  22.) 
They  love  all  men,  and  they  distribute  blessings  upon  all 
men  to  the  extent  of  their  ability.  "As  we  have  therefore 
opportunity,  let  us  do  good  unto  all  men,  especially  unto 
them  who  are  of  the  household  of  faith."  (Gal.  vi.  10.) 
There  are  some  things,  however,  which  religion  neither  en- 
ables nor  requires  the  Christian  to  do.  There  are  things 
which  even  a  perfect  Christian  cannot  apprehend,  and  unto 
which  he  cannot  attain.  Much  damage  results  to  the  cause 
of  Christianity  by  not  properly  understanding  the  truth  at 


280  The  Old  and  the.  New  Man: 

this  very  point.  Many,  for  the  very  reason  that  they  have 
not  understood  the  truth  involved  here,  have  undervalued 
their  religious  experience,  and  have  given  themselves  up 
to  doubt  and  despondency.  The  Christian,  however  per- 
fect he  may  be,  cannot  be  indifferent  to  injuries  done  him, 
and  to  indignities  laid  upon  him;  he  cannot  be  insensible 
to  pain  and  grief.  The  Christian  will  not  harbor  malice, 
Avill  not  give  vent  to  wrath,  will  not  seek  revenge,  will  not 
allow  anger  to  rest  in  his  bosom,  but  the  righteousness 
which  is  in  him,  and  the  love  of  truth  and  justice,  will 
prompt  him  to  hate  and  denounce  the  deeds  of  the  corrupt, 
and  the  works  of  the  wicked.  It  is  as  much  the  duty  of 
the  Christian  to  withstand  evil  influences,  and  all  those  who 
dissemble,  all  "  whosoever  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie,"  as  it 
is  to  love  his  enemies,  and  to  pray  for  those  who  despitefully 
use  him.  When  "  he  that  holdeth  the  seven  stars  in  his 
right-hand,  who  walketh  in  the  midst  of  the  seven  golden 
candlesticks,"  recounted  the  things  which  he  saw  in  the 
Church  of  Ephesus,  he  said  with  approbation :  "  But  this 
thou  hast,  that  thou  hatest  the  deeds  of  the  Nicolaitans, 
which  I  also  hate."  (Rev.  ii.  6.)  The  Christian  is  liable 
to  sorrow,  and  acquainted  with  grief.  He  rests  under  many 
chastisements.  Job  was  a  perfect  man,  and  a  patient  man, 
but  he  lost  much, and  suffered  much;  he  suffered  great  dep- 
rivation. "  His  grief  was  very  great."  He  poured  out 
his  complaint  before  God.  The  misery  which  was  in  his 
bones  and  in  his  flesh  was  real  and  indescribable,  and  the 
anguish  of  his  soul  was  intolerable.  His  complaint  was  as 
bitter  and  vehement  as  his  disease  was  excruciating  and 
wasting.  In  his  deep  anguish  he  cried  out:  "O  that  I 
might  have  my  request ;  and  that  God  would  grant  me  the 
thing  that  I  long  for!  Even  that  it  would  please  God  to 
destroy  me;  that  he  would  let  loose  his  hand,  and  cut  me 
off!"  (Job  vi.  8,  9.)  Thus,  in  the  bitterness  of  his  con- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  281 

suming  agony,  did  Job  make  and  justify  his  complaint.  In 
making  this  complaint  there  was  110  sin.  The  Christian,  on 
his  couch,  suffering  torture  and  wasting  with  disease,  may 
very  properly  groan  and  sigh;  and,  when  under  some  dire 
calamity  which  has  fallen  upon  him,  he  is  prostrated,  he 
may,  in  lamentation,  give  expression  to  his  grief. 


282  •     The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  SACRAMENTS  OP  THE  CHURCH — BAPTISM  AND  THE 
LORD'S  SUPPER. 

fTlHE  Church  and  the  sacraments  thereof  are  not  to  be 
-L  passed  in  silence  in  treating  the  great  subject  of  salva- 
tion from  sin. 

THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD. 

These  words  name  it.  These  \vords  define  it  in  so  far  as 
it  can  be  defined  by  words.  Other  words  may  describe  it. 
The  Church  had  its  inception  in  the  mind  of  God.  It  was 
evolved  with  the  scheme  of  human  redemption,  and  as  a 
chosen  entity,  constituted  of  laws  and  precepts,  adapted  to 
ordinances  and  man's  estate,  it  was  an  essential  institution 
in  the  provision  made  for  the  worship  of  God  and  the  sal- 
vation of  man.  As  a  system  constituted  of  the  principles 
which  sum  the  economy  of  God  in  the  salvation  of  man — 
as  an  embodiment  of  the  laws  of  the  government,  worship, 
and  grace  in  God's  dispensation  to  fallen  man — the  Church 
is  "the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  As  a  structure, 
existing  in  its  plans  and  purposes,  principles  and  adapta- 
tions, it  was  presented  by  God  to  Adam  when  he  announced 
to  him  the  seed  of  the  woman.  God  set  up  the  Church 
with  Adam  when  he  made  his  covenant  with  him  in  Christ. 

The  Church  in  visible  organization  contains  a  company 
of  persons,  but  not  every  company  of  individuals  constitute 
or  belong  to  the  Church.  An  association  of  pirates  plot- 
ting robbery,  an  assembly  of  lawless  and  infuriated  persons 
seeking  destruction,  constitute  a  congregation  drawn  out 
and  separated  (^/.x/.r^tu'),  but  do  not  constitute  the  Church 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.      •  283 

of  God.  A  congregation  to  be  of  the  Church  of  God 
must  be  associated,  under  the  gospel,  in  the  worship  and 
service  of  God.  There  must  be  a  dispensation  and  an  ad- 
ministration, under  divine  provision,  according  to  the  di- 
vine word  and  will. 

Many  \vho  claim  to  be  teachers  in  divine  things  main- 
tain that  the  baptism  of  John  was  the  beginning  of  the  gos- 
pel, and  that  the  Church  of  God  was  first  established  or  set 
up  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  fifty  days  after  the  resurrection 
and  ten  days  after  the  ascension  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  They 
teach  that  previous  to  this  men  groped  in  darkness  without 
revelation  and  without  the  light  and  offices  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  They  assert  that  all  the  promises  made  to  the  pa- 
triarchs and  to  the  Jews  under  the  Mosaic  regime  had  refer- 
ence to  political  economy,  social  status,  and  temporal  bene- 
fits; a  heritage  of  political  immunity,  of  oil  and  butter,  of 
corn  and  wine,  of  milk  and  honey.  They  herald  it  as  their 
belief  that  before  the  death  and  ascension  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
the  doctrines  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  a  day  of  judgment,  and  a  future  state  of 
awards  were  unknown ;  that  the  light  which  brought  to 
view  or  made  known  a  future  life  of  immortality  was  first 
given  at  the  resurrection  of  Jesus..  But  all  this  is  without 
any  warrant  from  the  Scriptures — is,  in  fact,  repugnant 
thereto.  As  the  Articles  of  Religion  state,  "  They  are  not  to 
be  heard  who  feign  that  the  old  fathers  did  look  only  for 
transitory  promises." 

The  gospel  of  Christ  was  preached,  and  the  Church  of 
God  was  set  up  in  the  beginning.  "  In  the  beginning  was 
the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was 
God."  "Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other;  for  there 
is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men  where- 
by we  must  be  saved."  (Acts  Lv.  12.)  That  there  is  no 
salvation  in  any  other  than  in  Jesus  was  as  true  in  the  time 


284  -The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

of  David,  of  Job,  of  Enoch,  and  of  Abel,  as  it  is  to-day. 
In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  and  in  that  name 
alone,  has  any  one  of  any  age  found  salvation.  The  patri- 
archs and  prophets  believed  in  Jesus,  and  they  trusted  in 
his  sacrificial  death  as  did  James  and  John,  as  did  Timothy 
and  Titus.  The  saints  who  lived  before  the  crucifixion 
looked  to  the  cross  in  like  manner  as  did  those  who  lived 
after  the  crucifixion.  Those  who  lived  back  in  patriarchal 
times  gloried  in  the  cross  in  the  same  manner  as  did  Paul. 
On  Calvary,  in  the  middle  of  the  centuries,  is  seen  the  cross 
on  which  the  Lord  of  glory  died.  Those  who  were  saved 
in  the  ages  before  the  crucifixion  looked  forward  to  this 
cross;  those  saved  in  the  ages  after  the  crucifixion  look 
back  to  it.  The  saints  of  all  ages  meet  at  the  cross.  The 
one  Church  of  the  living  God,  sweeping  in  the  duration  of 
her  existence  from  the  first  to  the  last  generation  on  earth, 
is  "built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  Corner-stone." 

Jesus  Christ  abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and  immor- 
tality to  light  through  the  gospel,  as  the  apostle,  in  writing  to 
Timothy,  asserted;  but  life  and  immortality  were  brought 
to  light  by  him  through  the  gospel,  and  given  to  the  first 
generations  of  the  race,  as  well  as  to  those  of  apostolic 
times.  The  light  of  the  gospel  illumined  the  patriarchal 
ages.  The  patriarchs  and  prophets  were  fully  instructed  in 
the  will  of  God  and  in  the  doctrines  of  redemption.  All 
the  doctrines  known  and  preached  by  the  apostles  were 
known  and  preached  by  the  prophets  and  by  tfie  patriarchs, 
including  those  of  the  first  generation.  The  gospel  wa.s 
preached  to  Adam  and  to  Abel,  and  the  Church  of  God 
Avas  set  up  with  them.  Abel  was  a  member  of  the  Church 
of  Christ.  He  died  a  witness  to  God's  method  of  saving 
men  through  Jesus  Christ.  He  was  the  first  one  who  died 
for  his  testimony  of  righteousness,  he  was  the  fir,<t  one  who 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  285 

died  for  his  fidelity  to  the  Son  of  God.  He  was  the  first 
martyr.  Noah  was  a  preacher  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  for 
he  was  "a  preacher  of  righteousness."  In  Noah's  time  and 
in  Paul's  day  righteousness  was  the  same  thing,  and  to  tho 
antediluvians  Noah  preached  the  same  righteousness  that 
Paul  preached  to  Felix  and  his  wife  Drusilla.  The  right- 
eousness preached  by  the  one  and  the  other  was  attained  • 
through  and  enforced  by  Jesus  Christ.  "And  Enoch  also, 
the  seventh  from  Adam,  prophesied  of  these,  saying,  Be- 
hold, the  Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints,  to 
execute  judgment  upon  all,  and  to  convince  all  that  are 
ungodly  among  them  of  all  their  ungodly  deeds  which  they 
have  ungodly  committed,  and  of  all  their  hard  speeches 
which  ungodly  sinners  have  spoken  against  him."  (Jude 
14,  15.)  Enoch  and  Paul  proclaimed  the  same  Lord,  and 
Enoch  portrayed  him  coming  to  judgment  in  fiery  indigna- 
tion against  the  ungodly  just  as  Paul  portrayed  him  when 
"he  reasoned  of  righteousness,  temperance,  and  judgment 
to  come."  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  was  the  theme  of  the  proph- 
ets and  the  patriarchs.  They  preached  him  in  all  the  facts 
and  doctrines  of  his  Messiahship  and  mission.  They  be- 
lieved on  him  and  rejoiced  in  him.  They  were  made  happy 
by  him  while  they  were  living,  and  through  him  they  died 
in  hope  of  eternal  salvation.  "These  all  died  in  faith,  not 
having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen  them  afar  off, 
and  were  persuaded  of  them,  and  embraced  them,  and  con- 
fessed that  they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth. 
For  they  that  say  such  things  declare  plainly  that  they  seek 
a  country.  And  truly,  if  they  had  been  mindful  of  that 
country  from  whence  they  came  out,  they  might  have  had 
opportunity  to  have  returned.  But  now  they  desire  a  bet- 
ter country,  that  is,  a  heavenly;  wherefore  God  is  not 
ashamed  to  be  called  their  God ;  for  he  hath  prepared  for 
them  a  city.  .  .  .  And  these  all,  having  obtained  a  good  re- 


28G  The  Old  and  the  New  Man. 

port  through  faith,  received  not  the  promise;  God  having 
provided  some  better  thing  for  us,  that  they  without  us 
should  not  be  made  perfect."  (Heb.  xi.  13-16;  39,  40.) 
This  portion  of  the  inspired  book  demonstrates  that  those 
here  alluded  to  and  named  by  the  apostle,  'beginning  with 
Abel  and  ending  with  the  last  of  the  prophets,  were  persons 
with  Christian  faith,  looking  to  a  future  state,  having  prom- 
ise and  hope  of  a  future  inheritance  in  the  eternal  city  of 
God.  They  had  the  same  faith  and  the  same  Saviour  which 
belonged  to  Christians  of  apostolic  times.  They  sought  the 
same  heavenly  city  which  was  sought  by  Christians  under 
the  ministry  of  the  apostles.  They  died  in  confident  ex- 
pectation of  the  same  better  inheritance,  than  is  to  be  found 
here  on  the  earth,  in  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  God  which 
animated  the  departing  saints  of  the  apostolic  dispensation. 

The  Church,  originating  with  God,  and  set  up  in  the 
covenant  made  with  apostate  Adam  and  his  posterity,  has 
had  her  ordinances  in  all  the  ages  of  her  existence,  but  of 
these  ordinances  in  the  earlier  and  past  dispensations  it  is 
not  necessary  to  speak  particularly.  In  the  present  ojder- 
ing  of  the  Church — and  the  present  order  is  to  continue 
until  the  end  of  time — there  are  two  sacraments,  and  these 
demand  recognition  and  treatment. 

The  subject  of  baptism  has  been  carefully  studied,  thor- 
oughly searched,  and  fully  discussed.  The  things  once  hid- 
den therein  have  long  since  been  discovered  and  set  forth 
in  a  clear  light.  There  is  nothing  novel  about  the  subject 
at  the  present  time,  but  still  as  a  theme  for  study  and  dis- 
cussion it  is  far  from  being  "empty,  void,  and  waste."  A 
patient  study  thereof  will  always  repay  those  who  desire 
the  welfare  of  Zion,  and  those  who  wish  to  walk  in  the  light 
of  the  Lord. 

It  is  proposed  to  consider  in  the  present  discussion,  first, 
the  character  and  purpose  of  baptism. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  287 

An  understanding  of  the  nature  of  sinful  men,  and  the 
nature  of  the  work  to  bo  wrought  in  their  salvation,  will 
help  to  a  comprehension  of  the  character  and  purpose  of 
this  ordinance  of  the  Christian  Church.  Men,  in  their  nat- 
ural state,  are  polluted  and  guilty,  unrighteous  and  unclean. 
They  need  cleansing  grace  and  an  absolving  act.  To  reno- 
vate them,  wash  them,  and  make  them  holy,  is  the  work  of 
the  gospel.  Holiness  is  the  climax  in  the  condition  of  be- 
ing. The  gospel,  in  its  purposes  and  plants,  is  in  accord 
with  this  truth.  God  is  pure,  heaven  is  pure.  Men,  if 
they  will  be  allied  to  God,  and  if  they  will  reside  at  last 
where  he  is,  must  be  pure.  Holiness  is  befitting  in  the 
house  of  God.  More  comely  than  those  who  have  been 
decked  with  "  rows  of  jewels  "  and  "  chains  of  gold  "  is  he 
who  has  been  adorned  with  "the  beauty  of  holiness."  To 
go  "  to  the  mountain  of  myrrh  and  to  the  hill  of  frankin- 
cense" is  far  less  delightful  than  to  stand  upon  the  "holy 
hill  of  Zion,"  and  within  the  gates  of  the  "  holy  city."  To 
purify  unto  himself  a  people  is  the  purpose  of  Christ  in  the 
gospel,  and  in  this  the  sacrament  of  baptism  has  its  signifi- 
cance. Baptism  is  the  sacrament  wherein  the  cleansing  of 
the  soul  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  is  represented. 

The  meaning  of  the  Avords  used  in  designating  this  sacra- 
ment must  be  ascertained  and  exhibited.  Those  who  ad- 
vocate the  doctrine  that  immersion,  and  nothing  but  im- 
mersion, is  baptism — making  much  of  the  fact  that  the 
Greek  words  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  this 
ordinance  have  been,  in  the  English  version,  Anglicized  or 
transferred,  and  not  translated — persist  in  translating  these 
Greek  words  according  to  their  theory.  They  translate  the 
noun  Bar:riffij.a,  immersion;  the  noun  Pa-Tia-r^,  immerser; 
the  verb  Ba-rgu>,  immerse;  and  the  participle,  Bar-t/rOsc-, 
immersed.  They  put  baptism,  as  a  word  and  as  an  ordi- 
nance, out  of  the  Bible.  But  this  sacrament  of  the  Chris- 


288  The  Old  and  the  New 


tian  Church  cannot  be  properly  designated  by  any  word  in 
the  English  language  except  the  word  "  baptism,"  and  its 
cognates.  This  word,  specific  in  its  aim,  broad  and  com- 
prehensive in  its  meaning,  names  and  defines  the  subject  ad- 
mirably and  exactly.  No  other  word  answers  the  purpose. 
"Immerse,"  "dip,"  and  "submerge,"  each  and  all,  are  terms 
too  limited  to  express  the  nature  of  this  institution  of  the 
Church  of  God.  One  might  be  immersed  and  not  baptized  ; 
might  be  dipped  and  not  baptized  ;  might  be  submerged 
and  not  in  any  sense  baptized.  But  though  to  utter  it  is 
only  to  utter  a  truism,  whoever  is  baptized  is  baptized. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  "immerse?"  What  is  the  mean- 
ing of  "dip?"  "Immerse  —  to  plunge  into  any  thing  that 
surrounds  or  covers,  especially  into  a  fluid  ;  to  dip  ;  to  sink  ; 
to  bury;  to  immerge."  "Dip  —  to  plunge,  to  immerse.  To 
insert  in  a  fluid."  To  immerse  is  simply  to  put  into  the 
fluid,  and  not  to  take  out  of  it.  Those  who  immerse  indi- 
viduals in  order  to  bapti/e  them,  do  more  than  immerse 
their  subjects.  They  take  them  out  of  the  water,  whereas 
if  they  only  jmmersed  them  they  would  leave  them  under 
the  water.  And  this  act  of  putting  persons  into  the  water 
and  taking  them  out  will  require  two  words  to  express  that 
which  is  done.  It  will  require  the  word  immerse  and  the 
word  emerge.  The  word  "  immerse  "  means  to  sink  into  a 
fluid.  "Emerge"  means  to  rise  out  of  a  fluid.  Simply  to 
immerse  persons  would  drown  them,  unless  they  by  their 
own  efforts  should  escape  the  fate.  The  substitution  of  im- 
mersion for  baptism  is  preposterous,  not  to  say  impertinent. 
With  deliberation  and  with  promptness  it  is  here  admitted 
that  the  terms  "pour"  and  "sprinkle,"  like  the  terms  "im- 
merse" and  "dip,"  are  too  limited  in  their  meaning  to  prop- 
erly name  and  define  this  institution  of  the  gospel. 

Sometimes  the  language  used  in   a  sentence  states  the 
thing  done  without  the  slightest  intimation  of  the  mode  by 


Oi;  Sin  «Mf/  Safeafinn.  289 


which  the  thing  is  effected.  Sometimes  the  language  used 
states  the  thing  done  and  the  mode  of  effecting  it.  An  ex- 
ample of  one  and  the  other  may  be  given :  "  Then  came  to 
him  the  disciples  of  John."  (Matt.  ix.  14.)  This  simply 
says  the  disciples  of  John  came,  without  giving  any  inti- 
mation of  their  manner  of  travel  or  mode  of  conveyance. 
"Minding  himself  to  go  afoot."  (Acts  xx.  13.)  This  ex- 
presses the  mode  of  travel — tells  not  only  of  his  going,  but 
the  manner. 

Baptism  is  a  general  term  of  designation,  and  not  a  term 
expressive  of  mode;  and  so  are  its  cognates.  "John  did 
baptize  in  the  wilderness."  (Mark  i.  4.)  This  tells  what 
was  done,  by  whom  it  was  done,  and  where  it  was  done ;  but, 
how  it  was  done  is  not  stated.  "  I  baptize  with  water." 
(John  i.  26.)  This  states  what  was  done,  by  whom  it  wr.s 
done,  and  with  what  it  was  done ;  but  how  it  was  done  is  not 
made  known.  The  mode  is  not  stated,  the  manner  is  not 
indicated. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "baptism?"  /»'«— :c«.«, 
purify;  /5a-r^//a,  purification.  Baptize  means  to  purify; 
baptism  means  purification.  Baptism  as  a  sacrament  in 
the  Church  is  an  ordinance  of  purification.  The  words  of 
the  Scriptures  vindicate  the  meaning  here  given.  •'  Then 
there  arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and 
the  Jews  about  purifying.  And  they  came  unto  John,  and 
said  unto  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jor- 
dan, to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  behold,  the  same  baptiz- 
eth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  (John  iii.  25,  26.)  There 
was  rivalry  between  the  followers  of  Jesus  and  the  disciples 
of  John.  One  party  contended  that  Jesus  alone  had  au- 
thority to  have  baptism  administered,  and  that  all  should 
follow  him ;  and  the  other  party  insisted  that  John  was  the 
proper  custodian  of  the  ordinance,  and  that  all  should  be 
his  disciples.  The  controversy  was  exclusively  about  bap- 
19 


290  Tin.'  Old  ami  the  X<>ir  Man : 


tism  as  administered  by  Jesus  and  by  John.  What  is  spok- 
en of  as  purifying  in  one  verse  is  spoken  of  in  the  other 
verses  as  baptizing.  This  is  a  demonstration  that  with  Jesus 
and  John,  and  with  their  followers,  baptism  meant  purifica- 
tion. These  Jews  were  familiar  with  purifications,  and 
they  set  great  estimate  upon  them,  for  they  had  their  i>iu.- 
¥<>fft>'.-  pa-T'.ffi>.ms,  "  divers  washings." 

Agreeing  exactly  with  the  meaning  to  purify  is  also  the 
meaning  to  wash.  Isaiah,  in  a  very  minute  prophecy  con- 
cerning the  humiliation  and  suffering,  the  exaltation  and 
glory,  of  the  Son  of  God,  says:  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations."  (Isa.  lii.  15.)  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  wa- 
ter upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean;  from  all  your  filthi- 
ness,  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  with- 
in you;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your 
flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh."  (Ezek.  xxxvi. 
25,  26.)  The  prophet  Ezekiel  doubtless  refers  here  to  the 
purifications  and  washings  performed  through  the  ritual 
services  provided  for  under  the  law  of  Moses;  but,  at  the 
same  time  he  was  proclaiming,  in  specific  prophecy  the 
Christ,  and  was  most  graphically  describing  the  work  and 
the  blessings  of  his  kingdom  in  the  earth;  It  is  clean  water 
here  named.  Water,  clean  water,  is  to  be  used  in  the  sac- 
rament of  baptism,  because  it  has  cleansing  properties,  and 
its  use  is  to  signify  the  cleansing  of  the  heart  by  the  blood 
of  the  Christ.  To  this  prophecy  of  Ezekiel,  and  to  the 
washings  under  the  Mosaic  ritual,  no  doubt  the  following 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  allude :  "  Christ  also  loved 
the  Church,  and  gave  himself  for  it;  that  he  might  sanctify 
and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word,  that 
he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church,  not  hav- 
ing spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing;  but  that  it  should 
be  holy  and  without  blemish."  (Eph.  v.  25-27.)  "  But 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  291 

according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  re- 
generation, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Titus  iii. 
5.)  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart  in  full  assur- 
ance of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil 
conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  (Heb. 
x.  22.)  That  baptism  means  washing,  and  that  its  sig- 
nificance, at  least  in  part,  is  found  in  this,  is  conclusively 
shown  by  the  text:  "And  now  why  tarriest  thou?  arise, 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  (Acts  xxii.  16.) 

In  some  places  in  the  New  Testament  the  Greek  word 
fta-rt<7tj.(ioq  is  used  in  the  sense  of  washing,  and  in  these 
places  it  will  not  bear  any  other  meaning.  "And  many 
other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as 
the  washing  [/9a-r^//«wc]  of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels, 
and  of  tables."  (Mark  vii.  4.)  The  "American  Bible 
Union,"  constituted  of  Baptists,  has  made  and  published  a 
version  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  baptism  docs  not 
appear.  This  version  has  it:  "In  those  days  comes  John 
the  Immerser."  "And  they  were  all  immersed  by  him  in 
the  Jordan."  This  version  of  the  New  Testament,  pub- 
lished under  the  auspices  of  the  "American  Bible  Union," 
gives  this  part  of  the  fourth  verse  of  the  seventh  chapter 
of  Mark  thus:  "And  there  are  many  other -things  which 
they  receive  to  hold,  immersions  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  bra- 
zen vessels  and  couches."  This  rendering  is  inconsistent 
with  obvious  truth.  Only  sectarian  bigotry  and  blind  fa- 
naticism could  lead  men  into  such  absurdity.  Certainly  no 
people  ever  had  such  customs  as  immersing  their  pots,  ta- 
bles, and  couches,  every  day.  The  translators  of  King 
James's  Version,  following  common  sense,  preserving  the 
unity  of  the  statement  of  the  case,  and  governed  by  the 
meaning  of  the  Greek  word  found  in  the  text,  translated  it 
washing. 


292  The  Old  and  the  New 


The  words  zai  diaaopotz  fta--i<T>wt.s  (Heb.  ix.  10)  are,  in 
the  King  James  Version,  translated,  "and  divers  wash- 
ings." The  "American  Bible  Union  "  translates  these 
words,  "  and  divers  immersions."  Under  the  Mosaic  econ- 
omy —  to  the  customs  of  which  these  words  allude  —  there 
were  various  Avashings,  but  no  immersions.  There  \v:.s 
sprinkling  of  water,  blood,  and  ashes,  but  no  submerging, 
plunging,  or  drowning.  Therefore,  there  can  be  no  reason, 
either  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  Greek,  or  in  the 
things  named  and  alluded  to  in  the  scope  of  the  passage, 
for  the  translation  made  by  the  sectarians  of  the  "Amer- 
ican Bible  Union." 

To  baptize  is  to  separate,  initiate,  dedicate,  bring  into 
covenant,  affirm  a  covenant.  These  significations  of  bap- 
tism are  found  in  the  text  (1  Cor.  x.  1,  2):  "Moreover, 
brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  how  that 
all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through 
the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea."  In  passing,  by  miraculous  interposition, 
through  the  Red  Sea,  and  under  the  guiding  and  protect- 
ing cloud,  the  children  of  Israel  were  delivered  and  sep- 
arated from  their  bondage  and  task-masters,  and  initiated 
into  a  new  order  of  life;  and  to  them  in  this  the  covenant 
of  Moses's  divine  mission  and  commission  was  affirmed. 
Here  was  an  affirmation  of  God's  covenanted  presence,  pow- 
er, and  deliverance  with  Moses.  This  confirmed  the  people, 
and  they  "  believed  the  Lord  and  his  servant  Moses."  To 
look  for  immersion,  sprinkling,  or  pouring  iu  this  baptiz- 
ing unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  is  to  degrade 
the  whole  subject,  and  miss  its  entire  import.  "  The  waters 
were  gathered  together,  the  floods  stood  upright  as  a  heap, 
and  the  depths  were  congealed  in  the  heart  of  the  sea," 
and  the  children  of  Israel  did  "go  on  dry  ground  through 
the  midst  of  the  sea;"  so  they  could  not  have  been  ro 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  293 

much  as  sprinkled  or  wet  with  spray  from  the  sea.  The 
pillar  of  cloud  was  not  an  ordinary  rain-cloud.  Never  a 
drop  of  rain  fell  from  that  cloud.  There  was  no  water  in 
it.  Very  dry  indeed  would  be  the  immersion  which  could 
be  obtained  from  that  cloud. 

In  the  execution  of  the  plans  and  purposes  of  redemp- 
tion, there  is  an  unceasing  negotiation  for  agreement,  there 
is  a  permanent  offer  of  amicable  relations,  there  is  a  con- 
stant proposal  of  affiance.  The  Lord  stipulates  with  men, 
and  in  covenant  he  engages  to  be  a  God  to  them,  giving 
grace,  strength,  and  guidance;  and  they  engage  to  be  his 
servants  in  all  reverence  and  faithful  obedience.  In  this 
stipulation  there  are  provided  "ordinances  of  divine  serv- 
ice." Baptism  has  been  instituted  a  rite  of  initiation,  and 
a  visible  sign  and  seal  of  the  righteousness  to  be  obtained 
by  faith  through  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  the  token  of  the  cov- 
enant Avhich  is  made  between  God  and  the  party  baptized. 
While  baptism  is  not  regeneration,  it  is  more  than  "  a  sign 
of  profession,  and  mark  of  difference,  whereby  Christians 
are  distinguished  from  others  that  are  not  baptized."  It 
is  an  oath  of  confirmation.  It  is  a  perpetual  oath  of  an 
everlasting  covenant,  and  is  not  to  be  despised. 

The  meaning  of  the  words  used  in  the  Bible  to  designate 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  has  now  been  examined,  and  it  is 
manifest  that  these  words  are  too  comprehensive  in  their 
meaning  to  be  substituted  by  the  words  immersion,  or  dip- 
ping, or  pouring,  or  sprinkling.  Baptism  is  not  immersion. 
Baptism  is  the  sacrament  by  which  persons  are  initiated 
into  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  it  symbolizes  the  washing 
and  purifying  of  the  soul  by  the  blood  of  Jesus.  The  ele- 
ment used  in  baptism  is  water.  The  rite  is  administered  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

The  texts  found  at  Romans  vi.  4  and  Colossians  ii.  12  have 
been  adduced  in  proof  that  only  immei'sion  is  baptism.  The 


294  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

immersionists  teach  that  baptism  is  symbolical  of  the  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ;  and  in  order  to  answer 
its  purpose,  submerging  is  indispensable.  They  claim  that 
immersion  is  a  real  burial,  and  a  true  resurrection.  To  the 
immersionists  this  doctrine  lends  a  perpetual  enchantment, 
and  they  nourish  it  as  if  it  \vere  the  only  form  of  absolute 
truth  in  the  Christian  world.  "  Lost  in  expansion,  void 
and  infinite,"  must  have  been  the  imagination  which  for- 
mulated this  chimerical  theory.  Originality  pertains  to  this 
theory,  but  its  originality  consists  in  its  monstrosity.  The 
perpetuation  of  such  a  theory  indicates  genuine  credulity. 
The  dogma  which,  like  this,  has  nothing  to  sustain  it  but 
limping  rhymes  on  "the  yielding  wave,"  and  "the  liquid 
grave,"  should  be  consigned  to  oblivion.  "  The  watery 
grave  "  and  oblivion  are  not  altogether  dissociated. 

But  an  investigation  of  the  teachings  of  the  passages  of 
Scripture  appealed  to  in  the  premises  is  necessary  before 
dismissing  this  part  of  the  subject.  The  text  in  the  fourth 
verse  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  Romans — in  order  to  a  ready 
understanding  thereof — must  be  given  with  its  context: 
"  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore,  we 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death ;  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Fa- 
ther, even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For 
if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection ;  knowing 
this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body 
of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should  net 
serve  sin."  (Rom.  vi.  3-6.)  Though  the  apostle  in  this 
passage,  refers  to  real  facts,  and  to  important  transactions, 
and  though  he  therein  teaches  real  and  important  truths,  he 
must  not  be  understood  as  using  words  in  this  passage  in  a 
literal  sense,  and  teaching  things  in  a  literal  manner.  There 


Or,  <S'//i  and  Salvation. 


are  in  this  portion  of  Scripture  similitudes,  and  it  abounds 
with  figurative  terms,  and  is  not  in  any  degree  misleading. 
In  this  text  there  is  a  richness  of  diction,  and  there  is  a 
loftiness  of  sentiment,  which  clothe  it  with  exquisite  beauty, 
and  fill  it  with  divine  sanctity.  This  text  is  as  far  from 
teaching  the  literal  burial  of  the  physical  man  in  baptism 
as  it  is  from  teaching  the  literal  annihilation  of  the  human 
race.  It  is  as  far  from  teaching  the  literal  resurrection  of 
the  human  body  in  baptism  as  it  is  from  teaching  that  ma- 
terial things  are  to  be  endowed  with  immortality.  If  the 
words  of  one  part  of  this  passage  have  a  literal  meaning, 
so  have  the  words  of  every  portion  of  it.  If  what  is  men- 
tioned in  one  part  must  have  a  literal  performance,  so  must 
Avhat  is  mentioned  in  every  part  of  it.  If  the  words  "we 
arc  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  "  are  literal  in 
signification,  then  the  words  "  we  have  been  planted  to- 
gether in  the  likeness  of  his  death,"  and  the  words  "  our 
old  man  is  crucified  with  him,"  have  literal  signification. 
If  "  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  "  signify  a  lit- 
eral burial  of  the  physical  body  in  water,  and  if  these  words 
contain  an  injunction  to  submerge  the  persons  who  are  can- 
didates for  membership  in  the  Church,  then  "  planted  to- 
gether in  the  likeness  of  his  death  "  signify  literal  planting, 
and  enjoin  the  literal  planting,  and  involve  the  literal  ger- 
mination, like  planting  seeds  in  the  ground,  like  the  grow- 
ing of  two  stalks  of  wheat  from  the  same  grain,  of  all  those 
who  would  attain  Christian  character.  This  interpretation 
of  a  literal  sense  involves  a  like  application  of  every  part 
of  this  passage  of  Scripture.  All  such  interpretations,  and 
all  such  attempted  performances,  suggest  aberration  and 
puerility.  Paul  never  meant  that  those  to  whom  he  wrote 
had  been  literally  crucified,  and  had  actually  died  on  a 'lit- 
eral cross.  When  Jesus  enjoined  the  taking  up  and  carry- 
ing the  cross,  he  did  not  make  it  a  duty  to  take  up  and 


296  The  Old  and  tlie  Neiv  Man  : 

bear  about  veritable  pieces  of  wood  transversely  arranged. 
Pertinacious  indeed  must  he  be  who  will  hold  a  scheme  of 
doctrines  which  involves  such  profound  absurdities  as  are 
found  in  this  theory  of  burial  by  immersion.  Those  who 
have  been  "baptized  into  Jesus  Christ"  have  signified  their 
death  unto  sin.  Their  death  to  sin  is  as  complete  as  is  the 
death  of  those  who  have  been  crucified  and  buried.  Their 
baptism,  instead  of  representing  the  death,  burial,  and  res- 
urrection of  Christ,  is  a  designation,  is  a  declaration  of  their 
own  death  to  sin,  and  of  their  separation  from  their  former 
sinful  life,  in  which  they  once  had  pleasure.  Those  who 
have  been  "  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,"  and  "  have  been 
planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,"  have  union 
with  him.  Their  union  with  Christ  is  as  integral  and  in- 
timate as  that  of  two  cions  germinated  from  the  same 
planting,  germinated  from  the  same  grain. 

The  text  in  Colossians  ii.  12,  like  the  one  at  Romans  vi. 
4,  is  in  its  language  highly  figurative,  as  may  be  seen  by 
taking  with  it  the  preceding  verses  which  constitute  a  part 
of  the  sentence:  "And  ye  are  complete  in  him,  which  is  the 
head  of  all  principality  and  power;  in  Avhom  also  ye  are 
circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in 
putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circum- 
cision'of  Christ;  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  (Col.  ii.  10-12.) 
Here  the  apostle,  in  exquisite  figures  of  speech,  and  in 
striking  allusion  to  the  sacramental  offices  of  well-known 
ordinances,  sets  forth  the  genuine  work  which  is  wrought  in 
those  who  are  made  Christians.  The  sin  inherent  in  fallen 
nature  is  destroyed,  and  a  new  and  living  principle  is  im- 
parted. The  old  man  is  killed;  the  new  man  is  raised  up. 
He  who  has  been  thus  wrought  upon  has  been  brought 
into  sanctified  relation  to  Christ,  and  under  oath  of  alle- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  297 

glance  to  God.  These,  and  things  kindred,  are  the  things 
taught  in  this  scripture.  Would  as  well  investigate  this 
text  for  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  perpetual  motion,  as 
appeal  to  it  to  vindicate  the  doctrine  of  immersion.  The 
theory  of  immersion  is  without  foundation  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  no  one  can  question  the  fact  that  it  is  a  sinking  theory. 
In  the  controversy  about  immersion  the  Greek  preposi- 
tions have  received  considerable  attention,  and  these  little 
governing  words  have  attained  great  prominence.  It  is 
contended  by  the  immersionists  that  the  prepositions  used 
in  the  New  Testament  show  conclusively  that  the  persons 
baptized  under  divine  sanction  were  put  in  water.  They 
assert,  with  great  confidence,  that  the  prepositions  used  in 
connection  with  the  subject  show  that  John  administered 
baptism  in  the  river  Jordan,  not  upon  it,  nor  at  it,  nor  by 
it,  nor  with  it.  And  with  a  boldness  worthy  of  the  truth 
they  say  the  prepositions  EV  and  ets  mean  in,  and  that  they 
never  mean  at,  by,  or  with,  and  that  a;r«  and  ex  mean  out  of, 
and  always  show  being  in  the  water;  and  they  most  sol- 
emnly declare  that  the  scholars,  lexicographers,  and  all  the 
translators  of  the  original  text,  support  these  assertions. 
But  investigation  will  show  that  the  Greek  prepositions,  as 
a  class  of  words,  have  more  than  one  meaning,  and  that  in 
every  instance  their  rendering  must  be  according  to  the  re- 
lation they  have  to  the  other  words  of  the  sentence  in  which 
they  occur,  and  the  state  or  action  to  be  denoted  by  the 
sentence.  Against,  among,  around,  at,  by,  from,  in,  into,  on, 
out,  over,  through,  to,  under,  underneath,  unto,  with,  not  to 
mention  others,  are  English  prepositions  which  come  into 
requisition  in  giving  the  many  meanings  of  the  various 
Greek  prepositions.  It  is  contended  that  such  expressions 
as  the  following,  which  are  found  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion, "were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,"  "and  they  went 
down  both  into  the  water,"  and  "went  up  straightway  out 


'2!)S  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


of  the  water/'  furnish  conclusive  proof  of  immersion.  But 
upon  investigation  it  will  be  found  that  these  expressions, 
in  the  English  text,  by  no  means  confirm  the  doctrine  of 
immersion.  These  Greek  prepositions,  after  all  the  parade 
made  about  them,  are  not  very  formidable  barriers  in  the 
way  of  pedobaptists. 

The  preposition  e>  may  be  translated  at.  The  preposi- 
tion ef?  may  be  translated  to.  The  preposition  «-»  may  be 
translated  from.  That  these  words  may  be  thus  translated 
shall  now  be  proved  by  the  immersionists  themselves.  They 
cannot  reject  their  own  work,  they  cannot  discredit  their 
own  testimony.  The  proof  to  be  introduced  on  the  point 
now  under  consideration  is  found  in  the  version  of  the  New7 
Testament  made  and  published  by  the  immersionists  under 
the  auspices  of  the  "The  American  Bible  Union."  This 
version,  to  secure  the  copyright,  was  "entered  according  to 
act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1865,  by  The  American  Bible 
Union,  in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York."  In 
a  "  Note  "  on  the  next  page  to  the  one  giving  the  title,  it  is 
stated :  "  This  revised  Testament  has  been  prepared  under 
the  auspices  of  the  American  Bible  Union  by  the  most  com- 
petent scholars  of  the  day."  This  version  of  the  New- 
Testament  wras  made  by  the  immersionists  in  the  interest  of 
their  favorite  dogma.  These  scholars  of  the  "American 
Bible  Union"  dived  into  the  work  of  making  this  new  ver- 
sion for  the  sake  of  getting  in  immersion.  A  few  passages 
may  be  quoted  from  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  its  ani- 
mus: "In- those  days  comes  John  the  immerser,  preaching 
in  the  wilderness  of  Judea.  .  .  .  Then  went  out  to  him  Je- 
rusalem, and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  about  the  Jor- 
dan ;  and  they  were  immersed  by  him  in  the  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins.  ...  I  indeed  immerse  you  in  water  unto 
repentance;  but  he  that  comes  after  me  is  mightier  than  I, 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  299 

whose  sandals  I  arn  not  worthy  to  bear;  he  will  immerse 
you  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire."  (Matt.  iii.  1,  5,  6,  11.) 

The  translations  made  of  these  Greek  prepositions  by  this 
version,  which  so  summarily  disposes  of  the  whole  subject 
of  baptism,  claims  immediate  attention.  This  version  ren- 
ders sv  in,  among,  at,  with.  "In  (sv)  those  days."  (Matt. 
iii.  1.)  "And  every  infirmity  among  (ev)  the  people." 
(Matt.  iv.  23.)  "  But  I  shall  remain  at  (cv)  Ephesus  until 
the  Pentecost."  (1  Cor.  xvi.  8.)  "  But  Trophimus  I  left  at 
(s>)  Miletus  sick."  (2  Tim.  iv.  20.)  "Because,  though  I 
made  you  sorry  with  (e>)  the  letter."  (2  Cor.  vii.  8.)  This 
version  translates  eis  to,  unto,  among.  "  But  Tychicus  I  sent 
to  (es?)  Ephesus."  (2  Tim.  iv.  12.)  "And  they  said,  Unto 
(s:c)  John's  immersion."  (Acts  xix.  3.)  "But  that  it 
spread  no  further  among  (er?)  the  people."  (Acts  iv.  17.) 
And  this  version  translates  a-<>  from,  out.  "And  having 
been  immersed,  Jesus  went  up  immediately  from  («-«)  the 
water."  (Matt.  iii.  16.)  "And  it  came  .to  pass  in  those 
days,  that  Jesus  came  from  («-«)  Nazareth  of  Galilee." 
(Mark  i.  9.)  "And  straightway  coming  up  out  of  («-")  the 
water."  (Mark  i.  10.)  • 

These  foregoing  quotations  may  suffice  to  show  how  these 
learned  immersionists  translate  the  Greek  prepositions. 
When  they  have  put  immersion  in  the  Bible  they  care 
nothing  about  the  services  secured  to  their  cause  by  their 
flimsy  argument  about  prepositions;  and  when  baptism  is 
out  of  sight  they  translate  these  prepositions,  as  their  mean- 
ing will  always  bear,  and  as  their  use  in  different  places 
demands,  with  different  English  prepositions.  This  con- 
cedes all  that  is  contended  for  by  those  who  refuse  to  hold 
the  dogma  of  immersion. 

If  £'.$,  the  preposition  used  in  the  twelfth  verse  of  the 
fourth  chapter  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  may  be 
translated  to — and  this  is  the  translation  made  by  the  schol- 


300  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

ars  of  the  "American  Bible  Union  " — then  there  can  be  no 
reason  why  the  same  word,  ere,  used  at  the  thirty-eighth 
verse  of  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts,  may  not  be  translated 
to.  Then  the  passage  would  read:  "And  they  went  down 
both  to  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch."  If  ev, 
which  is  the  preposition  used  in  the  eighth  verse  of  the  six- 
teenth chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  may 
be  translated  at — and  this  is  the  way  it  is  translated  in  the 
version  made  in  the  interest  of  immersion — then  there  can 
be  no  reason  why  the  same  word,  ev,  used  in  the  sixth  verse 
of  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew,  may  not  be  translated  at. 
Then  the  passage  would  read :  "And  were  all  baptized  of 
him  at  Jordan."  If  ev,  which  is  used  at  the  eighth  verse 
of  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, may  be  translated  with — and  this  is  the  translation 
made  of  it  in  this  place  by  this  version,  which  is  so  deeply 
absorbed  in  immersion — then  there  can  be  no  reason  why 
the  same  word,  ev,  found  at  the  eleventh  verse  of  the  third 
chapter  of  Matthew,  may  not  be  translated  with.  And 
common  sense  requires  that  it  should  be  with  instead  of  in, 
the  scholars  of  the  "American  Bible  Union"  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding.  But  not  to  be  further  tedious: 
"This  Revised  Testament"  proves  every  thing  which  those 
who  hold  that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  Christian  bap- 
tism have  contended  for  on  the  subject  of  the  prepositions. 
No  specific  mode  is  essential  to  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  no  more  is  any  specific  mode  essential  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  That  mode  of  administering  bap- 
tism which  best  symbolizes  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and 
which  is  most  conducive  to  order,  and  which  maintains  de- 
cency and  sobriety,  is  the  mode  to  be  adopted.  If  effusion 
is  in  accord  with  the  manner  of  bestowing  the  Holy  Ghost, 
then  let  effusion  be  the  accepted  mode  in  the  use  of  water 
in  inducting  persons  into  covenant  with  the  triune  God. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  301 

Proper  estimation  should  be  attached  to  the  sacrament 
of  baptism.  Let  it  not  be  overvalued,  let  it  not  be  depre- 
ciated. Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  individ- 
ual more  than  once,  but  this  baptism  is  a  means  of  grace, 
in  the  use  of  which  a  Christian  may  live  every  day  during 
his  earthly  pilgrimage.  Symbolically  baptism  is  a  new 
birth,  typically  it  is  a  regeneration.  While  washing  the 
body  with  water  cannot  purify  the  conscience,  and  while 
the  Holy  Ghost  alone  can  renew  the  soul  and  cleanse  the 
heart,  the  words  of  Jesus  are  not  empty  words :  "  Except  a 
man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God."  (John  iii.  5.)  According  to 
the  word  of  the  Lord  Jesus  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them 
who  were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  likewise  let 
the  water  fall  on  those  who  are  baptized  with  water. 

It  is  essential  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  that  it  be  ad- 
ministered in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

WHO  ARE  ENTITLED  TO  RECEIVE  BAPTISM? 
Every  one  entitled  to  salvation  is  entitled  to  baptism. 
This  includes  every  man,  woman,  and  child.  Every  one  of 
human  kind  in  all  the  world  is  entitled  to  the  gospel  of  the 
Son  of  God,  for  it  has  been  provided  for  and  sent  forth  to 
every  one.  The  apostles  were  sent  forth  fiy  the  crucified 
and  risen  Saviour  to  disciple,  baptize,  and  train  in  the  way 
of  God's  commandments  all  nations,  every  human  creature. 
The  commission  given  these  apostles  is  thus  broad  and  com- 
prehensive. "Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you ;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt,  xxviii.  19, 
20.)  To  disciple,  baptize,  and  train  in  the  commandments 
of  God,  are  but  distinct  parts  of  the  same  work,  and  each 


302  The  Old  and  the  Nciv  Man: 

part  is  alike  inclusive  of  and  applicable  to  all  human  creat- 
ures. Those  to  be  discipled  are  to  be  baptized,  those  to  be 
discipled  and  baptized  are  to  be  taught  the  commandments 
of  Jesus.  Each  of  these  works  is  to  be  done  upon  every 
one  composing  the  nations.  There  is  not  an  individual  pre- 
cluded. The  process  provided  in  the  commission  shows  that 
the  teaching,  baptizing,  and  training  are  to  go  on  in  their 
due  order,  and  in  this  order  they  are  to  go  on  together. 
The  baptizing  is  to  be  done  pending  the  training,  not  de- 
ferred until  the  training  is  consummated.  Baptizing  is  in 
the  category  of  the*  first  principles.  Baptizing  is  initial 
work,  training  in  the  commandments  is  consummative  and 
terminal  work. 

A  person  rejecting  the  plan  of  salvation  cannot,  of  course, 
enter  into  its  covenant  stipulations.  It  would  be  prepos- 
terous for  a  man  with  a  profane  speech  on  his  lips  to  take 
an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King  immutable.  The  man 
who  receives  baptism  must  recognize  the  scheme  of  redemp- 
tion and  the  obligations  of  obedience  to  its  requisitions. 
The  man  who  assumes  the  vows  of  the  baptismal  covenant 
assumes  the  obligations  of  repentance  for  sin,  of  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  obedience  to  the  law  of  God.  The 
man's  desires  and  purposes  should  be  in  accord  with  hii 
actions.  The  Sdult  person  who  is  in  conformity  to  this 
standard  is  entitled  to  receive  baptism.  The  penitent  who 
is  seeking  to  be  saved  from  his  sins,  who  is  seeking  the  re- 
generating power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  may  receive  baptism 
as  he  .may  receive  any  other  assistance,  and  as  he  may  use 
any  other  means  of  grace  which  the  gospel  offers  him.1 
In  this  view  is  seen  the  true  meaning  of  the  text:  "Re- 
pent, and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  ro- 
ceive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Acts  ii.  38.)  The 
Bible  no  more  defers  baptism  until  after  the  attainment 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  303 

of  regeneration  than  it  defers  prayer  until  after  that  at- 
tainment. 

INFANTS  are  entitled  to  receive  baptism.  Children  under 
parental  authority  may  be  dedicated  to  God  and  his  service 
in  ,holy  baptism.  The  position  herein  stated  is  assumed 
with  confidence;  not  the  confidence  which  is  born  of  cre- 
dulity, or  preconceptions,  or  predilections,  but  with  the 
confidence  which  is  inspired  by  the  inflexible  word  of  God. 
With  reliance  placed  alone  in  truth,  appeal  is  made  to  the 
Scriptures.  The  evidence  to  support  the  position  that  in- 
fants are  entitled  to  receive  baptism  may  be  further  un- 
folded. 

In  every  covenant  which  God  made  with  men,  in  which 
he  instituted  a  covenant-making  and  a  covenant-keeping 
ordinance,  he  included,  by  special  stipulation,  the  children 
of  the  parties  with  whom  the  covenant  was  made.  This 
fact  attests  that  children  are  entitled  to  receive  baptism. 

God  made  a  covenant  with  Adam,  in  the  days  of  his  in- 
nocence, of  which  covenant  the  tree  of  life  in  the  midst  of 
the  garden  of  Eden  was  the  token.  This  covenant  included, 
by  special  designation,  Adam's  posterity:  "So  God  created 
man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him ; 
male  and  female  created  he  them.  And  God  blessed  them, 
and  God  said  unto  them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  re- 
plenish the  earth,  and  subdue  it;  and  have  dominion  over 
the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  every 
living  thing  that  movcth  upon  the  earth."  (Gen.  i.  27,  28.) 

When  the  flood  was  past,  and  the  Lord  smelled  a  sweet 
savor  from  the  burnt-offerings  presented  to  him  by  Noah, 
God  blessed  Noah  and  his  sons,  and  he  made  with  them  a 
covenant,  of  which  covenant  the  bow  in  the  clouds  was  or- 
dained the  token.  This  covenant  included,  by  special  stip- 
ulation, their  children :  "And  God  spake  unto  Noah,  and 
to  his  sons  with  him,  saving,  And  I,  behold,  I  establish  my 


304  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

covenant  with  you,  and  with  your  seed  after  you ;  and  with 
every  living  creature  that  is  with  you,  of-the  fowl,  of  the 
cattle,  and  of  every  beast  of  the  earth  with  you ;  from  all 
that  go  out  of  the  ark,  to  every  beast  of  the  earth.  And 
I  will  establish  my  covenant  with  you ;  neither  shall  all 
flash  be  cut  off  any  more  by  the  waters  of  a  flood ;  neither 
shall  there  any  more  be  a  flood  to  destroy  the  earth.  And 
God  said,  This  is  the  token  of  the  covenant  which  I  make 
between  me  and  you,  and  every  living  creature  that  is  with 
you,  for  perpetual  generations:  I  do  set  my  bow  in  the 
cloud,  and  it  shall  be  for  a  token  of  a  covenant  between  me 
and  the  earth."  (Gen.  ix.  8-13.) 

In  the  roll  of  years  and  in  the  lapse  of  time  God  called 
Abraham,  and  made  with  him  a  covenant,  of  which  cove- 
nant circumcision  was  instituted  the  token.  In  this,  as  in 
the  former  covenants  noticed,  the  children  were  specially 
named:  "And  God  said  uuto  Abraham,  Thou  shalt  keep 
my  covenant  therefore,  thou,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in 
their  generations.  This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall 
keep,  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee:  Every 
man-child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall 
.circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin;  and  it  shall  be  a 
token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And  he  that 
is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every 
man-child  in  your  generations,  he  that  is  born  in  the  house, 
or  bought  with  money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not  of  thy 
seed."  (Gen.  xvii.  9-12.) 

When  the  fullness  of  time  in  the  great  purpose  of  uni- 
versal redemption  was  come,  Jesus  came  forth  and  made  a 
covenant  with  the  nations  of  the  world,  of  which  covenant 
baptism  was  ordained  the  token.  In  this  covenant  Jesus 
specially  named  and  included  the  children :  "  Then  were 
there  brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he  should  put 
his  hands  on  them,  and  pray;  and  the  disciples  rebuked 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  305 

them.  But  Jesus  said,  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid 
them  not,  to  corae  unto  me ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them,  and  departed 
thence."  (Matt.  xix.  13-15.)  When  the  apostles  went 
forth  to  proclaim  this  covenant  of  the  Son  of  God,  which 
covenant  is  not  to  be  superseded  so  long  as  the  ages  endure, 
they  made  special  mention  of  the  children  as  embraced  in 
the  promise  and  included  in  the  covenant:  "Then  Peter 
said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the 
promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that 
are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
(Acts  ii.  38,  39.)  That  the  children  are  included  in  the 
promise  is  mentioned  in  immediate  connection  with  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism. 

If  God's  purpose  and  grace  are  manifested  in  his  cove- 
nant transactions — and  most  certainly  they  are — then  it  is 
the  divine  purpose  to  guarantee  to  children  the  promise  of 
covenant  grace,  and  to  have  them  inducted-into  his  Church 
by  holy  baptism.  Surely  the  God  of  eternal  truth  and  love 
would  not  so  uniformly  have  included  the  children  in  his 
covenant  engagements  were  it  his  purpose  to  exclude  them 
from  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  These  conclusions  are  ap- 
parent to  any  one  of  ordinary  sagacity.  This  testimony, 
gathered^from  the  stipulations  of  God's  repeated  covenants 
to  the  rights  of  children  in  the  economy  of  the  gospel,  cannot 
be  impeached,  and  the*  con  elusion  that  infants  should  be  bap- 
tized rests  on  scriptural  premises.  The  wise,  candid,  and  tract- 
able will  submit  to  evidence  and  accept  demonstrated  truth. 

In  conformity  to  and  in  recognition  of  the  covenant  stip- 
ulations of  Jesus  that  little  children,  infants,  should  be  ini- 
tiated as  subjects  of  his  kingdom,  the  apostles  baptized  the 
children  of  those  who  accepted  the  gospel  and  brought 
20 


800  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

their  children  for  the  reception  of  the  ordinance.  Lydia, 
of  Thyatira,  the  jailer  at  Philippi,  and  Stephanas  at  Cor- 
inth, are  all  mentioned  as  having  their  children  bap^ed. 
"And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of 
the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshiped  God,  heard  us;  whose 
heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things 
which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when  she  was  baptized, 
and  her  household,  she  besought  us,  saying,  If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house, 
and  abide  there ;  and  she  constrained  us.  .  .  .  And  he  took 
them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes; 
and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway."  (Acts  xvi. 
14,  15,  33.)  "And  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Ste- 
phanas." (1  Cor.  i.  16.)  Had  it  been  a  fact  that  only 
adult  persons,  the  servants,  or  domestics,  of  Lydia,  the  jailer, 
and  Stephanas,  had  been  baptized,  the  record  could  have 
been  conformed  to  the  fact  without  the  least  difficulty.  It 
could  have  been  stated  that  the  stewards,  or  hired  servants, 
or  under-officors,  of  the  parties  named  were  baptized.  But 
in  each  case  the  historical  statement  suggests  that  the  chil- 
dren of  these  families  were  baptized.  The  jailer  "  was  bap- 
tized, he  and  all  his."  "His"  were  persons  under  his  con- 
trol and  authority — persons  for  whom  he  acted.  Lydiu 
"was  baptized,  and  her  household."  "Her  household" 
were  persons  under 'her  control  and  authority — persons  for 
whom  she  acted.  t 

One  of  the  objections  which  the  Baptists  offer  to  baptiz- 
ing infants,  and  which  they  enforce  with  the  bluster  of  con- 
fidence and  with  an  air  of  triumph,  they  state  as  follows: 
B<ipii*m  cannot  save  an  infant.  An  infant  dying  without 
bapUiam  would  not,  on  that  account,  be  lost.  Why,  then,  bap- 
tize an  infant?  What  good  can  baptism  do  an  unconscious 
infant? 

This  objection  must  be  fairly  considered.     No  properly 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  •      307 

conducted  investigation  could  possibly  lead  to  the  associa- 
tion of  the  statements  and  questions  embodied  in  this  ob- 
jection. They  have  no  relation  to  each  other  whatever. 
No  sublime  thought  could  ever  suggest  such  a  combination 
of  disconnected  points.  To  dispose  of  this  objection  to  the 
satisfaction  of  any  thinking  mind  is  not  a  difficult  task,  for 
it  is  really  a  frivolous  objection.  The  reasoning  presented 
in  this  objection  would  discard  the  ordinance  of  baptism  al- 
together. It  would  do  away  with  baptizing  adults  as  well 
as  infants.  It  is  granted  at  once  that  baptism,  by  itself, 
cannot  save  an  infant.  It  is  conceded  that  an  infant  dying 
without  baptism  would  not,  on  that  account,  be  lost.  It 
does  not,  however,  follow  from  this  that  there  is  not  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  baptizing  an  infant.  It  does  not  follow 
from  this  that  baptism  cannot  do  an  unconscions  infant  any 
good.  Baptism,  by  itself,  cannot  save  an  adult.  An  adult 
dying  without  baptism  would  not,  on  that  account,  be  lost. 
So,  then,  to  meet  the  Baptists  on  their  own  ground,  Why 
baptize  an  adult?  what  good  can  baptism  do  an  adult? 
When  the  Baptists  have  answered  these  questions  properly, 
then  they  will  have  proper  answers  to  the  questions,  Why 
baptize  an  infant?  what  good  can  baptism  do  an  uncon- 
scious infant?  In  the  meantime  two  other  questions  may 
be  propounded :  Why,  under  a  former  economy,  circumcise 
an  infant?  what  good  could  circumcision  do  an  uncon- 
scious infant?  The  answer  to  these  questions  will  supply 
the  answer  to  the  questions,  Why  baptize  an  infant?  what 
good  can  baptism  do  an  unconscious  infant?  The  reason 
for  circumcising  an  infant,  under  a  former  economy,  is  the 
reason  for  baptizing  an  infant  under  the  present  economy. 
As  benefits  were  conferred  on  an  infant  by  circumcision,  in 
like  manner  benefits  are  conferred  on  an  infant  by  baptism. 
This  disposes  of  the  objection  so  boastingly  preferred  against 
baptizing  children. 


The  Old  ami  the  New  Man : 


By  the  Baptists  it  is  said  infants  should  not  be  baptized 
because  they  have  not  the  intelligence  to  comprehend  the 
nature  of  the  ordinance,  nor  the  faith  necessary  to  secure 
its  benefits,  nor  power  sufficient  to  render  the  obedience  re- 
quired by  the  divine  law.  All  the  objections  herein  con- 
tained have  been  satisfactorily  answered  by  what  has  been 
said  in  refuting  the  objection  above  noticed. 

The  nations  are  to  be  baptized.  Infants  constitute  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  nations.  They  are  regarded,  protected, 
and  provided  for  as  citizens  of  the  commonwealth ;  there- 
fore, they  are  part  of  the  population  entitled  to  receive  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  To  attempt  to  refute  this  position  is 
to  expend  labor  in  vain,  and  strength  for  naught.  How 
lovely  and  how  beautiful  the  ordinance  which  initiates  the 
children  into  the  Church  of  God  on  earth !  Hither  come 
the  tribes  which  swell  the  ranks  of  Israel's  hosts.  By  di- 
vine statute  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  authorized  to 
baptize  infants.  Ministers,  overseers  of  the  flock,  are  to 
take  into  the  fold  the  lambs,  and  feed  them  and  nurture 
them.  "  Feed  my  lambs." 

THE  LOED'S  SUPPER, 

sometimes  called  the  Eucharist,  was  instituted  in  the  city 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  while  eating,  with  his 
twelve  apostles,  the  passover  supper  at  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread,  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed.  The 
persons  present  and  receiving  this  sacrament,  at  the  time 
of  its  institution,  were  the  twelve  apostles;  perhaps  Judas 
Iscariot  was  excluded.  Bread  and  wine,  the  elements  em- 
ployed in  instituting  this  sacrament,  were  used  with  a  serv- 
ice of  thanksgiving,  and  with  a  special  formula  of  words. 
The  elements  and  words  of  institution  give  to  this  ordinance 
a  visible  sign  and  ceremony  ordained  of  God  which  consti- 
tute it  a  sacrament.  This  is  a  sacrament,  a  covenant  ordi- 
nance. It  is  a  memorial  of  redemption,  a  pledge  of  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  oOO 

resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  a  blissful  immortality. 
Having  a  prescribed  form  and  a  visible  sign,  it  is  a  seal  of 
the  covenant  of  redemption.  It  is  absolutely  essential  to 
this  ordinance  that  it  set  forth  the  death  of  Christ,  and  per- 
petuate the  doctrine  of  redemption  and  remission  through 
his  death.  A  recognition  of  the  atoning  merit  and  of  the 
divine  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ,  in  securing  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  this  service. 
.Bread  and  wine  are  also  indispensable  to  this  •  ordinance. 
It  must  be  administered  in  the  use  of  bread  and  wine,  and 
in  the  use  of  the  form  of  words  setting  forth  to  view  the 
broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  Christ  for  the  redemption 
of  men  and  the  remission  of  their  sins.  This  sacrament  is 
administered  to  confirm  in  the  covenant  of  redemption,  and 
to  strengthen  in  the  grace  of  remission,  those  who  receive 
it.  It  is  to  be  administered  and  received  repeatedly,  to  keep 
the  death  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin  visibly  present  to 
his  people,  and  to  furnish  them  constantly  the  nourishment 
which,  as  a  memorial  of  his  propitiation,  it  is  competent  to 
supply.  While  it  does  not  convey  grace  by  its  own  opera- 
tion, and  while  it  is  not  a  sacrifice,  made  by  priestly  ma- 
nipulations, for  completing  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ 
made  on  the  cross,  it  is  something  more  than  an  ordinary 
service  for  commemorating  historical  events,  and  for  pro- 
ducing good  resolutions  and  moral  effects.  To  all  such  as 
eat  and  drink  according  to  the  meaning  and  intent  of  this 
divine  institution,  Christ  is  spiritually  present  in  this  sacra- 
ment. To  such  as  in  this  sacrament  show  forth  the  death 
of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  there  is  a  partaking  of  the 
benefits  of  that  sacrificial  death,  there  is  a  partaking  spir- 
itually of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  there  is  a  re- 
ception of  strength,  and  health,  and  life. 

The  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  contrary  to  philoso- 
phy, to  common  sense,  and  to  the  Scriptures.     It  is  not 


310  The  Old  and  the  New  Man : 

true  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  converted  into  the  real 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  by  the  words  of   consecration 
used  by  the  priest.     That  which  is  received  by  the  com- 
municant, in  the  sacrament,  is  not  the  body  which  was  born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  offered  on  the  cross,  and  received  up 
into   heaven.      This   body  is   in   heaven,  and   not   on  the 
earth,  and  is  impassible,  and  cannot  be  divided,  masticat- 
ed, or  digested.     Though  they  have  been  set  forth  by  the 
friends  of  the   doctrine   as   conclusive   proof  thereof,  the 
words  of  Jesus  used  at  the  time  of  the  institution  of  this 
sacrament  do  not  establish  the  doctrine  of  transubstautia- 
tiou:  "And   as  they  were   eating,  Jesus  took    bread,  and 
blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and 
said,  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.     And  he  took  the  cup, 
and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all 
of  it;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."     (Matt.  xxvi.  26- 
28.)     In  these  words,  Jesus  said  what  he  meant,  and  meant 
what  he  said,  but  evidently  he  did  not  intend  that  the  dis- 
ciples should  understand  that  in  eating  the  bread  they  were 
actually  eating  his  literal  body,  and  that  in  drinking  the 
wine,  which  was  in  the  cup,  they  were  literally  drinking 
his  real  blood.     They  could  not  possibly  entertain  such  a 
thought  on  the  subject.     His  body  was  there  before  their 
eyes,  whole,  and  unmangled;    his  blood  was  in  his  veins, 
not  yet  spilt.     They  knew  they  were  not  eating  his  literal 
flesh;  they  knew  they  were  not  drinking  his  real   blood. 
They  were  clearly  to  understand  him,  and  they  did  under- 
stand him,  as  speaking  of  these,  the  bread  and  wine,  which 
they  ate   and  drank,  as  pointing  to  his  broken  body  and 
shed  blood;  which  body  was  to  be  broken,  and  which  blood 
was  to  be   shed   for  the   remission  of  sins.     The  disciples 
were  prepared,  so  far  as  they  could  be  prepared  under  the 
circumstances,  to  comprehend  the  Lord's  meaning  in  his 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  31 1 

words,  and  in  the  entire  institution,  for  he  had  taught 
them  before  his  betrayal,  and  before  this  hour's  service, 
that  he  was' to  give  his  flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world,  and 
that  men  were  to  obtain  life  through  his  flesh  torn,  and 
through  his  blood  shed:  "I  am  the  living  bread  which 
came  down  from  heaven ;  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he 
shall  live  forever;  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my 
flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world.  The 
Jews  therefore  strove  among  themselves,  saying,  How  can 
this  mtin  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?  Then  Jesus  said  unto 
them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh 
of  the  Son  of  maiij  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in 
you.  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath 
eternal  life ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  For 
my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.  He 
that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in 
me,  and  I  in  him."  (John  vi.  51-56.)  It  is  literally  true 
that  whosoever  is  saved,  is  saved  by  eating  the  flesh  and 
drinking  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  man.  There  is  no  salva- 
tion, there  is  no  eternal  life,  without  this  eating  and  this 
drinking.  The  man  must  be  fed  and  nourished  by  the  life- 
giving  nourishment  provided  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  cruci- 
fied Jesus,  if  he  would  live  forever.  But  it  is  not  material 
bread,  nor  material  drink,  that  is  here  spoken  of;  it  is  not 
a  literal  eating  of  the  flesh,  nor  a  literal  drinking  of  the 
Itlood,  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  It  is  meat  and  drink  for  spirit- 
ual nourishment,  taken  in  spiritually.  It  is  true  that  it  is 
not  figurative  meat  and  drink  of  which  the  Lord  here 
speaks,  but  it  is  the  nourishing  and  life-giving  virtue  of  his 
atoning  sacrifice,  made  through  his  flesh  torn  and  his  blood 
shed,  of  which  he  speaks  under  the  figures  of  meat  and 
drink.  Though  they  are  used  to  set  forth  a  real  life-giving 
virtue  in  the  atoning  death  of  the  Son  of  God,  these  words, 
recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  are  highly  figurative. 


312  TJie  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

He  Avho  eats  the  flesh,  and  drinks  the  blood  of  Christ — ns 
Christ  sets  this  eating  and  drinking  forth  in  this  sixth  chap- 
ter of  John — obtains  eternal  life;  but  one  might  eat  the 
bread  and  drink  the  wine,  in  the  sacrament,  and  still  have 
no  life  in  him.  Many  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  who 
are  not  saved.  In  many  cases  where  the  Lord's  Supper  has 
been  received  there  has  been  no  change  of  heart,  no  feeding 
upon  Christ  by  faith,  and  there  is  no  consistency  of  conduct. 
This  could  not  be,  if  in  the  eating  the  bread  and  drinking 
the  wine  used  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the  literal  flesh  and 
blood  of  Christ  were  received.  Those  who  are  saved  must 
receive  the  benefit  of  Christ's  body  broken  and  of  his  blood 
shed.  The  words  of  Jesus  used  in  the  institution  of  this 
sacrament  are  qualified  by  the  figurative  sense,  and  they 
must  be  taken  in  the  figurative,  and  not  in  the  literal,  sense. 
No  doubt  the  paschal  lamb  was  a  type  of  Christ,  and  the 
blood  of  atonement  presented  in  the  Jewish  sacrifices  point- 
ed to  the  t)lood  of  Christ  by  which  men  are  redeemed,  and 
so  they  were  understood ;  and  in  this  view  the  words  of 
Jesus  had  their  significance.  As  words  are  used  in  many 
places  they  will  not  bear  a  figurative  sense,  and  as  they 
are  used  in  many  other  places  they  will  not  bear  a  literal 
sense.  This  must  be  recognized,  and  interpretations  must 
be  governed  accordingly.  "And  Moses  was  a  hundred  and 
twenty  years  old  when  he  died;  his  eye  was  not  dim,  nor 
his  natural  force  abated."  (Deut.  xxxiv.  *7.)  This  lan- 
guage is  literal  in  its  signification,  without  any  typical 
meaning  or  figurative  intent.  It  would  be  folly  to  treat  it 
as  figurative  language.  "I  am  the  rose  of  Sharon,  and  the 
lily  of  the  valleys."  (Song  of  Solomon  ii.  1.)  This  lan- 
guage is  manifestly  figurative,  and  could  not  have  a  literal 
interpretation.  Likewise,  the  words  used  in  the  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  are  figurative,  and  in  their  plain  and 
obvious  meaning  must  be  understood  as  teaching  that  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  313 

bread  and  wine  are  signs  of  Christ's  broken  body  and  shed 
blood.  The  bread  is  eaten  and  the  wine  is  drank  in  com- 
memoration of  Christ's  death.  In  many  places  Christ's 
words  must  be  understood  figuratively.  As  in  the  follow- 
ing texts:  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  am  the  door 
of  the  sheep."  (John  x.  7.)  "  I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my 
Father  is  the  husbandman.  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the 
branches."  (John  xv.  1,  5.)  In  like  manner  the  words  of 
this  institution  are  figurative,  and  they  mean:  this  bread 
represents  my  body  given,  broken ;  this  cup,  this  wine,  rep- 
nwnts  my  blood  shed.*  The  Scriptures  abound  with  in- 
stances in  which  the  sign  is  spoken  of  as  the  thing  signi- 
fied. Two  instances  may  be  given.  Christ  says:  "The 
seed  is  the  word  of  God."  (Luke  viii.  11.)  The  apostle 
Paul  says:  "And  that  Hock  was  Christ."  (1  Cor.  x.  4.) 
The  bread  and  wine  are  sacramental  signs,  not  an  outward 
veil  having  an  inward  divine  substance.  After  all  the  ma- 
nipulations of  consecration,  the  bread  and  wine  have  not 
been  converted  into  any  other  substance,  either  human  or 
divine;  they  are  bread  and  wine  still,  having  the  form, 
color,  taste,  and  substance  of  bread  and  wine.  The  rhet- 
oric about  only  the  "  accidents  "  of  bread  and  wine  remain- 
ing is  but  a  silly  parade,  and  can  never  support  a  theory 
which  defies  common  sense,  and  contradicts  the  Bible. 

The  doctrine  of  consubstantiation  is  as  unreasonable  and 
as  unscriptural  as  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  for 
which  it  was  substituted.  Neither  by  type,  figure,  sign, 
illustration,  nor  in  any  manner,  does  the  Bible  give  any 
intimation  that  the  veritable  body  of  Christ  is  really 
present  with  the  bread  and  wine  used  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Eucharist.  Such  a  thing  is  absolutely  impos- 
sible. The  body  of  Christ  can  be  in  but  one  place  at  the 
same  time.  His  veritable  body  was  literally  present  at 
the  institution  of  this  sacrament,  but  has  never  been  prcs- 


314  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 


ent  at  any  administration  of  it  since  that  time.  The  Eucha- 
rist is  administered  in  very  many  places  at  the  same  hour. 
It  is  impossible,  in  the  very  nature  of  physical  being,  for 
the  body  of  Christ  to  be  literally  present  at  all  these  places. 
And,  moreover,  Christ's  body  is  in  heaven,  and  not  on  the 
earth.  "  He  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  at  the  right- 
hand  of  God  the  Father  Almighty ;  from  thence  he  shall 
come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead."  This  doctrine  of 
consubstantiation  contravenes  the  absolute  laws  of  material 
being,  antagonizes  the  teachings  of  what  is  called  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  and  impinges  the  w<*d  of  God.  The  Bible 
teaches  that  he  who  rightly  takes  the  bread  and  wine  has 
communicated  to  him  the  benefits  of  the  body  and  blood  of* 
Christ,  the  bread  and  wine  constituting  the  outward  sign, 
signifying  the  reception  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
spiritually.  This  is  concisely  set  forth  in  the  words  of  St. 
Paul :  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?" 
(1  Cor.  x.  16.) 

WHO  ARE  ENTITLED  TO  RECEIVE  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER? 

The  nature  and  purpose  of  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  nat- 
ure and  purpose  of  this  sacrament  furnish  an  answer  to  this 
question.  Christ  died  for  sinners.  He  died  to  atone  for 
their  sins,  that  they  through  his  atoning  sacrifice  might  ob- 
tain remission  of  their  sins,  and  whatever  else  pertains  to 
salvation  and  eternal  life.  This  sacrament  he  ordained 
"  his  death-recording  rite,"  as  Charles  Wesley,  the  poet,  in 
one  of  his  admirable  hymns,  calls  it.  Christ  says:  "This 
is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many 
for  the  remission  of  sins."  Consequently,  sinners  are  inter- 
ested in  this  sacrament,  and  sinners  are  entitled  to  receive 
it.  Sinners,  not  the  innocent — sinners,  not  angels — are  in- 
vited to  commemorate  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  If 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  315 

there  be  those  who  have  never  had  sins  to  be  remitted,  let 
them  stand  aloof  from  this  sacrament,  which  has  all  its  sig- 
nificance in  its  portrayal  of  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood 
of  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins.  It  must,  however,  be 
penitent  and  repentant  sinners  who  commemorate,  through 
this  sacrament,  the  atoning  death  of  the  Son  of  man.  Sin- 
ners who  justify  their  sins,  sinners  who  crucify  the  Son  of 
God  afresh  by  contemning  his  commandments,  cannot  right- 
fully nor  rightly  receive  the  bread  and  wine  in  this  divine 
service.  But  sinners  who  honor  Christ  by  confessing  him 
with  the  mouth,  and  who  renounce  their  sins,  and  who  seek, 
through  the  atoning  death  of  Jesus,  the  remission  of  their 
sins,  may  eat  and  drink  with  thanksgiving,  and  to  their 
profit  and  edification. 

It  has  been  asserted  by  some  that  regeneration  must  pre- 
cede participation  in  this  sacrament,  and  that  penitent  in- 
quirers are  not  to  be  admitted  to  any  participation  in  this 
sacred  ordinance.  But  not  a  single  passage  from  the  Script- 
ures can  be  given  which  will  in  any  wise  support  this  asser- 
tion. Regenerated  persons  may  and  should  participate  in 
this  service,  and  so  may  truly  penitent  seekers. 

It  has  been  asserted  also  that  baptism  must  precede  par- 
ticipation in  this  sacred  ordinance.  But  this  assertion,  so 
confidently  made,  is  also  without  any  warrant  of  Scripture. 
Nowhere  in  the  Bible  is  it  asserted  that  the  reception  of 
baptism  must  absolutely  precede  the  reception  of  the  Eu- 
charist. Baptism  is  not  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  any  more  than  the  Lord's  Supper  is  an'  in- 
dispensable prerequisite  to  baptism.  It  is  true  that  baptism 
is  the  initiatory  rite  in  the  Church,  and  it  is  true  that  bap- 
tism should  be  administered  to  infants,  and  these  two  points 
may  furnish  an  apparent  basis  for  the  inference  that  the  re- 
ception of  baptism  should  precede  the  reception  of  the  Eu- 
charist, but  it  is  certainly  correct  to  say  that  the  same  moral 


316  The  Old  and  the  New  M<m  • 

qualities  and  attainments  which  fit  a  person  for  the  recep- 
tion of  one  of  these  sacraments  fit  him  for  the  reception  of 
the  other.  One  sacrament  is  not  more  sacred  than  the  oth- 
er. If  a  person  presenting  himself  at  the  table  for  the  Eu- 
charist should  be  rejected  for  want  of  qualification,  he 
should,  for  the  same  disqualification,  be  rejected  were  he  to 
present  himself  at  the  font  for  baptism.  He  should  no 
more  be  refused*  the  Lord's  Supper  because  he  had  not  been 
baptized  than  he  should  be  refused  baptism  because  he  had 
not  received  the  Eucharist.  Any  one  refusing  to  recognize 
baptism  as  a  sacrament  of  the  Church  should  not,  of  course, 
be  permitted  to  receive  the  Eucharist;  and,  on  thex other 
hand,  any  one  refusing  to  recognize  the  Eucharist  as  a  sac- 
rament of  the  Church  should  not  be  permitted  to  receive 
baptism. 

Repentance  and  confession  of  sin,  the  purpose  to  lead  a 
new  life,  and  a  trustful  recognition  of  the  atoning  death  of 
Jesus,  are  necessary  to  a  proper  and  profitable  participation 
in  the  holy  communion.  To  this  end  the  candidate  for  this 
service  should  scrutinize  his  life,  his  motives,  and  his  heart. 
"  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that 
bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup."  (1  Cor.  xi.  28.)  It  is  re- 
quired by  the  Bible  that  the  duty  of  maintaining  moral 
character  be  accepted  by  those  who  would  continue  to  show 
forth  the  Lord's  death  by  participating  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. "  But  now  I  have  written  unto  you  not  to  keep  com- 
pany, if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a  fornicator, 
or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or 
an  extortioner;  writh  such  a  one  no  not  to  eat."  (1  Cor. 
v.  11.) 

It  is  legitimate  and  altogether  appropriate  to  administer 
the  Eucharist  at  any  time  and  place  that  the  elements  of  bread 
and  wine  can  be  furnished,  and  a  proper  administrator  and 
a  proper  communicant  can  be  found  together.  The  mini- 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  317 

ber  of  communicants  assembled  for  this  service  is  a  matter 
of  entire  indifference.  It  is  as  legitimate  to  administer  this 
ordinance  to  one  communicant  as  it  is  to  administer  it  to 
one  hundred.  Any  place  where  God  may  be  worshiped  is 
appropriate.  Whether  it  is  in  a  public  hall  or  a  private 
room  makes  no  diiference.  This  sacrament  was  instituted 
in  a  large  upper-room  of  a  private  dwelling.  This  is  re- 
corded by  three  of  the  evangelists.  To  administer  this  sac- 
rament in  a  private  house  to  an  invalid  impinges  no  divine 
statute.  The  Church,  in  her  enactments  and  administra- 
tions, should  be  careful  that  in  avoiding  errors  and  super- 
stitions of  one  kind  she  does  not  run  into  those  of  another 
sort  which  are  equally  hurtful. 

The  posture  assumed  at  the  Lord's  Supper  is  of  no  vital 
importance,  whether  it  be  kneeling,  standing,  or  sitting. 
Whether  it  is  the  intention  of  the  eucharistic  services  to 
express  joy,  or  humility,  or  penitence,  or  gratitude,  the 
posture  assumed  is  of  no  consequence  whatever.  Error  is 
as  likely  to  be  fostered  by  one  posture  as  by  another.  Than 
attachment  to  the  posture  of  sitting  there  is  none  more  in- 
dicative of  prejudice  and  unreasonable  adherence  to  mere 

precedent. 

We  see  the  blood  that  seals  our  peace; 

Thy  pard'ning  mercy  we  receive; 
The  bread  doth  visibly  express 

The  strength  through  which  our  spirits  live. 


The  Old  find  the  JVnt1  Man. 


CHAPTER  XV, 

THE  PERSONAL  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  TERMINATING  IN  THE 
FINAL  REWARDS  OF  SALVATION. 

ENTITY,  individuality,  responsibility,  probation,  con- 
tingency, doom,  and  destiny.  What  words  are  these ! 
What  thoughts,  sublime  aud  fearful,  they  embody!  The 
time  allotted  to  each  individual  on  earth  is  a  time  of  pro- 
bation, and  the  present  life  and  the  probation  thereof  are 
to  terminate  by  entrance  upon  a  future  state  and  a  final 
destiny.  All  the  days  allotted  on  earth  are  days  of  proba- 
tion and  responsibility,  of  labor  and  trial.  Each  individ- 
ual is  charged  with  working  out  his  own  salvation,  and  his 
destiny  depends  upon  the  fidelity  with  which  he  responds 
to  the  task  assigned.  There  are  doctrines  to  be  believed, 
principles  to  be  cherished,  and  work  to  be  done.  Salvation 
is  to  be  achieved.  Individual  responsibility  is  a  fearful  re- 
ality. "  For  it  is  written,  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  every 
knee  shall  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to 
God.  So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  Jiim- 
self  to  God."  (Rom.  xiv.  11,  12.)  There  is  a  personal 
Christian  life  to  be  maintained  on  earth;  a  Christian  life 
which,  when  maintained  to  the  end  of  the  pilgrimage,  ter- 
minates in  the  rewards  of  an  endless  felicity.  The  individ- 
ual is  furnished  here  with  the  means  of  grace  necessary  to 
every  good  word  and  work.  Mind,  heart,  and  hand,  time, 
talent,  and  opportunity,  are  all  to  be  used  in  the  service  of 
God. 

The  testimonies  of  God  are  to  be  sought,  his  judgments 
learned,  his  precepts  and  his  statutes  kept,  and  his  law  and 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  319 

his  commandments  obeyed.  .The  word  of  God  has  been 
spoken  to  men ;  it  is  pure,  true,  and  mighty,  and  shall  stand 
forever.  It  should  not  be  corrupted,  nor  handled  deceit- 
fully. "All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and 
is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  in- 
struction in  righteousness;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be 
perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works."  (2 
Tim.  iii.  16,  17.) 

Man  is  dependent  upon  revelation  for  a  knowledge  of 
God  and  of  himself.  The  light  of  nature  is  circumscribed 
in  its  range,  and  is  dim  even  where  it  shines.  Some  sub- 
jects lie  beyond  its  range,  and  those  lying  within  its  limits 
are  imperfectly  illuminated.  Human  reason,  unaided  by 
revelation,  cannot  range,  in  its  meditations  and  reflections, 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  light  of  nature.  The  conclusions 
arrived  at  by  human  reason  have  not  been  uniform,  and 
the  rules  adopted  for  human  action  by  those  who  have  had 
no  other  source  of  knowledge  but  human  reason  have  been 
imperfect  at  best,  and  most  generally  absurd  and  contra- 
dictory. The  voice  of  conscience  is  not  uniform.  Human 
reason,  having  no  other  source  of  information  but  nature, 
could  never  discover  the  origin  of  things  nor  find  out  the 
destiny  of  man  beyond  the  hour  of  his  dissolution.  No 
human  intuition  ever  evolved  the  idea  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  or  disclosed  the  existence  of  angels.  Divine 
revelation  brought  to  human  view  the  origin  of  life,  and 
the  origin  of  all  things,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion and  immortality.  Man  did  not  search  for  God  and 
find  him.  God  made  himself  known  to  man,  made  himself 
known  by  revelation. 

The  Bible  is  a  supernatural  and  an  infallible  composi- 
tion. It  is  the  word  of  God  spoken  to  man.  It  is  a  reve- 
lation of  the  divine  will  and  purpose  concerning  the  hu- 
man family.  The  writers  of  the  Bible  were  inspired.  God, 


320  TJie  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

by  this  inspiration,  suggested  every  thought  expressed,  in- 
dited every  word  used,  and  guided  in  the  entire  treatment 
of  every  theme  set  forth.  "But  the  Comforter,  which  is 
the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name, 
he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 
remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you."  (John 
xiv.  26.)  "  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy ; 
whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto  a  light 
that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn,  and  the 
day-star  arise  in  your  hearts;  knowing  this  first,  that 'no 
prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation. 
For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man ; 
but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost."  (2  Pet.  i.  19-21.) 

Though  given  through  different  writers,  and  in  different 
times  and  separate  ages  of  the  world,  there  is  in  the  several 
parts  of  the  Bible  perfect  agreement.  This  agreement 
shows  that  the  book  has  one  author,  and  that  he  is  pos- 
sessed of  divine  wisdom.  The  loftiness  of  the  style  and  the 
dignity  of  the  sentiments  of  this  book  show  it  to  be  divine. 
It  contains  no  ostentatious  phraseology  and  pronounces  no 
boastful  eulogies.  It  exhibits  primal  beauties,  records  im- 
perishable truths,  embodies  the  greatest  mysteries,  portrays 
the  profoundest  wonders,  and  inculcates  the  sublimest  prin- 
ciples. This  book  displays  the  infinite  wisdom,  love,  justice, 
and  goodness  of  God.  The  hideousness  of  sin  and  the 
beauty  of  holiness  are  alike  depicted  in  these  divine  pages. 
Here  sin  is  denounced  and  virtue  is  approved.  Redemp- 
tion, deepest  and  sublimest  of  all  mysteries,  is  the  theme 
pervading  the  history,  precept,  prophecy,  and  promise  of 
this  book.  The  Bible  shows  to  its  readers  the  avenues  of 
happiness,  and  whether  it  fills  them  with  calm  repose  or  with 
rapturous  joy,  it  leads  them  on  to  ever  new  delights.  It 
sheds  a  realizing  light,  and  the  invisible,  the  immortal,  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  321 

eternal  One  is  apprehended.  All  things  in  "the  breadth 
and  length,  and  depth  and  height,"  are  brought  to  view 
here,  and  the  revelation  is  complete,  so  that  none  may 
preach  any  other  gospel,  for  there  is  not  another.  "  For  I 
testify  unto  every  man  that  heareth  the  words  of  the  proph- 
ecy of  this  book,  If  any  man  shall  add  unto  these  things, 
God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that  are  written  in  this 
book;  and  if  any  man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of 
the  book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take  away  his  part 
out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from 
the  things  which  are  written  in  this  book."  (Rev.  xxii. 
18,  19.) 

The  truth  and  the  divinity  of  the  Scriptures  have  been 
attested  by  the  power  of  miracles  and  by  the  wisdom  of 
prophecy.  In  connection  with  the  promulgation  of  the 
Scriptures  miracles  were  wrought,  miracles  which  were  at- 
tested as  genuine  by  credible  and  competent  witnesses. 
Prophecies  were  delivered  in  conjunction  with  these  mes- 
sages from  the  omniscient  God  which  have  been  fulfilled ; 
and  their  utterance  as  prophecies,  and  their  subsequent  ful- 
fillment have  been  established  by  most  satisfactory  evidence. 
It  is  a  resort  to  a  poor  expedient  to  say  that  it  is  contrary 
to  experience  that  miracles  should  be  true,  and  according 
to  experience  that  testimony  should  be  false.  This  has  no 
force  in  it  at  all.  It  is  simply  to  deny  the  existence  of  su- 
pernatural power,  and  to  charge  those  who  have  testified  to 
miracles  with  deception,  and  an  intentional  violation  of  the 
truth.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  there  can  be  no  uni- 
versal experience  on  the  subject  of  miracles.  If  miracles 
were  sufficiently  frequent  to  afford  universal  experience,  if 
they  were  as  common  as  the  recurrence  of  day  and  night, 
or  the  flowing  of  water,  or  the  blowing  of  the  wind,  then 
they  would  be  no  longer  discernible  as  miracles,  and  would 
fail  of  their  effect  and  of  their  purpose.  The  power  of 
21 


:522  .          Th>'.  Old  and  the  New  Man  : 

miracles  has  never  been  discovered  in  nature,  and  never 
will  be,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  there  is  no  supernatural 
power  residing  in  a  being  distinct  from  the  material  world. 
No  one  believing  the  Scriptures  has  ever  claimed  that  the 
power  of  miracles  resides  in  material  things.  They  be- 
lieve that  the  power  of  miracles  is  with  the  immaterial  and 
omnipotent  God.  The  remark  that  it  is  according  to  expe- 
rience that  testimony  should  be  false,  cannot  discredit  mir- 
acle.', and  cannot  discredit  testimony.  Because  some  wit- 
nesses have  prevaricated,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  testi- 
mony is  and  must  be  false.  The  men  who  at  different  times 
testified  to  the  different  miracles  which  were  wrought  by 
and  through  God,  were  competent  to  judge  of  the  facts  in 
the  case,  and  were  in  every  way  competent  witnesses.  They 
were  not  persons  of  blind  credulity,  who  could  be  imposed 
on  by  necromancy,  sleight-of-hand,  and  cunning  craftiness. 
Moses,  under  God,  enacted  laws  against  witchcraft,  and 
against  all  superstitious  charms;  and  this  shows  that  he  was 
not  a  man  giving  countenance  to  and  living  by  such  things. 
Mosss  was  not  a  man  to  be  deceived  by  appearances,  and  so 
of  all  the  witnesses  to  the  miracles  asserted  by  the  Script- 
ures to  be  such.  The  apostles  and  disciples  of  Jesus  were 
not  persons  led  by  blind  credulity,  deceiving  and  being  de- 
ceived, the  dupes  of  every  story  told.  They  would  not  be- 
lieve that  Christ  was  risen  from  the  dead  until  they  had  in- 
dubitable evidence.  And  so  of  all  truth-loving  men. 

After  strict  and  elaborate  investigation,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear to  the  contrary  but  that  the  Bible  presents  a  system 
of  truth  consistent  with  itself,  and  in  harmony  \\ith  all  nat- 
ure's works ;  a  system  of  truth  adapted  to  the  necessities 
and  capacities  of  mankind,  and  a  system  of  truth  creditable 
to  a  benevolent  and  an  omniscient  and  infallible  author. 
The  Bible  reveals  the  relations  which  all  moral  beings,  in- 
cluding God  himself,  sustain  to  each  other,  and  designates 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  323 

all  human  rights,  and  appoints  and  instructs  in  all  human 
duties.  "  The  Bible  contains  all  things  necessary  to  man's 
salvation,"  is  the  true  standard  of  faith,  the  sole  rule  of 
conduct,  and  the  only  authority  in  the  establishment  and 
enforcement  of  doctrine.  The  obligation  to  submit  implic- 
itly to  the  teachings,  and  to  observe  to  do  all  the  words  of 
this  law  which  are  written  in  this  book,  is  absolute.  The 
Christian  is  to  grow,  become  wise  and  strong,  stable  and 
good,  by  the  constant  study  of  the  Scriptures.  Therein  is 
the  way  of  success  and  prosperity,  of  light  and  life.  "  Ye 
shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  command  you,  neither 
shall  ye  diminish  aught  from  it,  that  ye  may  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord  your  God,  Avhich  I  command  you." 
(Deut.  iv.  2.)  "And  he  said  unto  him,  If  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded, 
though  one  rose  from  the  dead."  (Luke  xvi.  31.)  "  For  I 
testify  unto  every  man  that  heareth  the  words  of  the  proph- 
ecy of  this  book,  if  any  man  shall  add  unto  these  things, 
God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that  are  written  in  this 
book ;  and  if  any  man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of 
the  book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take  away  his  part 
out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from 
the  things  which  are  written  in  this  book."  (Rev.  xxii. 
18,  19.)  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the 
soul ;  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the 
simple.  The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the 
heart;  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening 
the  eyes.  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  clean,  enduring  forever ; 
the  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous  altogeth- 
er. More  to  be  desired  are  they  than  gold,  yea,  than  much 
fine  gold;  sweeter  also  than  honey  and  the  honey-comb. 
Moreover,  by  them  is  thy  servant  warned ;  and  in  keeping 
of  them  there  is  great  reward."  (Ps.  xix.  7-11.)  "Search 
the  Scriptures;  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life; 


324  The  Old  and  the  Xcu<  Man : 

and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me."  (John  v.  39.) 
"  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy;  whereunto 
ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto  a  light  that  shineth  in 
a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn,  and  the  day-star  arise  in 
your  hearts;  knowing  this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  the 
Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation."  (2  Pet.  i.  19, 
20.) 

Whosoever  would  lay  hold  on  eternal  life,  and  would  be 
partaker  of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light,  must 
hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words ;  must  show  by  a  good 
conversation  works  of  meeknes?  and  of  wisdom ;  must  be 
an  example  of  patience  in  suffering  affliction  and  persecu- 
tions; and  must  continually  seek  to  be  strengthened  with 
might  by  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  inner  man.  The  Chris- 
tian is  to  be  a  witness  for  Jesus,  an  embodiment  of  pru- 
dence and  piety,  an  agent  in  disseminating  truth  and  holi- 
ness, in  maintaining  justice  and*  judgment,  and  an  instru- 
ment in  reforming  and  saving  sinners ;  and  for  the  work 
thus  wrought  in  the  earth  he  is  to  be  rewarded  in  the  world 
of  glory  and  of  renown.  "Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth. 
Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world."  (Matt.  v.  13,  14.)  "Ye 
shall  be  witnesses  unto  me  both  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all 
Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the 
earth."  (Acts  i.  8.)  "And  they  that  be  wise  shall  shine 
as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament ;  and  they  that  turn 
many  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  forever  and  ever."  ( Dan. 
xii.  3.)  "  Let  him  know,  that  he  which  converteth  the  sin- 
ner from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a  soul  from  death, 
and  shall  hide  a  multitude  of  sins."  (James  v.  20.) 

The  things  which  pertain  to  Christians  are  within  the 
realm  of  the  supernatural,  the  invisible,  and  the  future. 
Faith  alone  is  sufficient  to  take  in  these.  Hence  Chris- 
tians never  depend  on  the  science  of  nature,  the  vagaries  of 
human  reason,  or  the  things  visible  and  tangible.  They 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  325 

walk  by  faith,  and  not  by  sight,  and  are  saved  by  hope. 
The  things  which  are  seen  being  temporal,  and  the  things 
which  are  not  seen  being  eternal,  they  look  not  at  the 
things  which  are  seen,  but  at  the  things  which  are  not  seen. 
While  in  the  flesh,  they  do  always  groan,  most  earnestly  de- 
siring to  put  off  their  earthly  house,  and  to  put  on  their 
house  which  is  to  be  furnished  them  from  heaven.  They 
continually  declare  that  they  are  strangers  and  pilgrims  in 
the  earth,  and  that  they  seek  a  city  which 'God  has  pre- 
pared for  them,  with  enduring  foundations,  in  another  and 
better  country.  This  faith,  by  which  Christians  walk,  "  is 
the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things 
not  seen."  This  faith  gives  a  realizing  sense  and  a  sub- 
stantiating evidence  of  the  invisible  things  for  which  they 
hope.  This  is  not  an  assumption  of  blind  credulity,  sup- 
ported only  by  superstitious  fervor,  but  it  is  an  intelligent 
assurance  founded  upon  a  conscious  perception  of  the  su- 
pernatural, the  invisible,  and  the  eternal.  The  supernat- 
ural has  been  displayed  by  wonders  and  prophecies.  Won- 
der-working power  and  prophetic  knowledge  declare  the 
existence  of  the  invisible,  omnipotent,  and  omniscient  God. 
Faith,  transcending  the  power  and  range  of  reason,  grasps 
the  eternal  and  the  infinite,  and  hope  anchors  the  soul 
steadfastly  where  heaven  is  continually  in  view. 

In  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  apostle  Paul  announces 
as  a  divine  truth,  that  salvation  is  attained  by  hope :  "  For 
we  are  saved  by  hope."  (Rom.  viii.  24.)  While  giving  to 
the  subject  of  hope  all  the  importance  which  can  rightfully 
attach  to  it,  let  no  other  doctrine  be  ignored.  Let  the  sub- 
stitution of  one  doctrine  for  another  have  no  place  in  the- 
ory or  practice.  Let  no  point  of  doctrine  be  disparaged, 
let  none  be  unduly  magnified.  Grace,  atonement,  repent- 
ance, faith,  justification,  regeneration,  assurance,  love,  and 
obedience,  are  all  included  in  the  teachings  of  the  gospel. 


326  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

Every  one  of  these  doctrines  has  its  own  peculiar  functions, 
and,  in  the  great  system  of  salvation,  is  assigned  its  own 
peculiar  place.  Not  a  single  doctrine  of  the  Bible  conflicts 
with  any  other  doctrine  thereof.  Not  a  text  in  the  Script- 
ures antagonizes  any  other  text  therein.  The  text,  "  By 
grace  are  ye  saved,  through  faith,"  does  not  impinge  the 
text,  "  We  are  saved  by  hope."  The  text,  "  Therefore,  we 
conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds 
of  the  law,"  does  not  contravene  the  text,  "  Work  out  your 
own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling."  In  the  attainment 
of  the  salvation  of  men,  grace  and  hope  are  both  produc- 
tive elements,  but  they  are  by  no  means  the  same  thing. 
Faith  and  hope  are  closely  associated,  and  they  have  some- 
thing in  common;  but  faith  is  not  hope,  and  hope  is  not 
faith.  By  the  grace  of  God,  through  the  death  of  Jesus 
Christ,  salvation  has  been  provided  for  the  human  race, 
And  this  grace  which  brings  salvation,  and  which  has  ap- 
peared to  all  men,  must  ever  be  magnified;  yet  men  are 
not  justified  by  grace,  and  grace  docs  not  perform  the  office 
which  is  peculiar  to  hope,  nor  the  office  which  is  peculiar 
to  faith.  Repentance,  in  its  place,  is  indispensable  in  the 
salvation  of  responsible  sinners;  but  men  are  not  justified 
by  repentance.  Regeneration  is  a  \vork  without  which  no 
one  can  be  saved,  but  it  is  distinct,  both  in  its  nature  and 
office,  from  hope,  and  can  never  be  substituted  thereby. 

To  the  Christian  who  still  resides  here,  salvation  is  not 
already  attained.  If  salvation  were  a  state  already  con- 
firmed, then  hope  could  not  be  a  medium  in  conferring  it. 

Probation  lasts  as  long  as  this  present  life,  and  the  final 
destiny  of  every  man  is  contingent  while  he  resides  in  a 
mortal  body.  To  all  who  dwell  below  the  sun  salva- 
tion is  something  not  yet  secured.  The  Christian  does  not 
attain  the  end  of  his  faith  while  he  remains  in  the  flesh  on 
the  earth.  Salvation  is  never  consummated,  and,  in  the 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  327 


very  nature  of  the  case,  cannot  be  consummated,  this  side 
of  the  grave.  This  life  is  one  of  vanity  and  suffering,  and 
a  finished  salvation  is  a  state  of  freedom  from  all  pain,  suf- 
fering, and  death.  A  complete  salvation  gives  to  both  body 
and  soul  fullness  of  glory,  a  glory  secure  beyond  all  death 
and  contingency.  So  the  subject  is  presented  by  the  ibl- 
lovving  text :  "  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  this  pres- 
ent time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory 
which  shall  be  revealed  in  us.  For  the  earnest  expecta- 
tion of  the  creature  waiteth  for  the  manifestation  of  the 
sons  of  God.  For  the  creature  was  made  subject  to  vanity, 
not  willingly,  but  by  reason  of  him  who  hath  subjected  the 
same  in  hope;  because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be  de- 
livered from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious 
liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  For  we  know  that  the 
whole  creation  groaneth  and  travailetli  in  pain  together 
until  now.  And  not  only  they,  but  ourselves  also,  which 
have  the  first-fruits  of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan 
within  ourselves,  waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  re- 
demption of  our  body.  For  we  are  saved  by  hope ;  but  hope 
that  is  seen  is  not  hope:  for  Avhat  a  man  seeth,  why  doth 
he  yet  hope  for?  But  if  we  hope  for  that  we  see  not,  then 
do  we  with  patience  wait  for  it."  (Rom.  viii.  18-25.) 

It  is  absolutely  possible  for  a  justified  and  regenerated 
person  to  sin,  and  thereby  apostatize  from  a  state  of  grace, 
and  be  finally  lost.  He  may  apostatize  and  be  as  surely 
and  irretrievably  lost  as  he  who  was  never  justified  and  re- 
generated. Many  passages  might  be  adduced  from  the  Bi- 
ble in  proof  of  this  position,  but  the  subject  is  so  plain,  and 
the  demonstration  is  so  complete,  that  a  few  passages  may 
suffice.  "  But  when  the  righteous  turneth  away  frqni  his 
righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity,  and  doeth  accord- 
ing to  all  the  abominations  that  the  wicked  man  doeth,  shall 
lie  live?  All  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done  shall  not 


328  Tlie  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

be  mentioned ;  in  his  tresspass  that  he  hath  trespassed,  and 
in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them  shall  he  die.  .  .  .  When 
a  righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness,  and 
committeth  iniquity,  and  dieth  in  them;  for  his  iniquity 
that  he  hath  done  shall  he  die."  (Ezek.  xviii.  24,  26.) 
"  The  righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall  not  deliver  him 
in  the  day  of  his  transgression ;  as  for  the  wickedness  of 
the  wicked,  he  shall  not  fall  thereby  in  the  day  that  he 
turneth  from  his  wickedness;  neither  shall  the  righteous 
be  able  to  live  for  his  righteousness  in  the  day  that  he 
sinneth.  When  I  shall  say  to  the  righteous  that  he  shall 
surely  live ;  if  he  trust  to  his  own  righteousness,  and  com- 
mit iniquity,  all  his  righteousness  shall  not  be  remembered; 
but  for  his  iniquity  that  he  hath  committed,  he  shall  die 
for  it."  (Ezek.  xxxiii.  12,  13.)  These  texts  present  and 
portray  a  possible  apostasy,  complete  and  ruinous.  Right- 
eous men  may  abandon  their  righteousness,  annul  their 
former  good  works,  forfeit  their  state  of  acceptance  and 
approval,  and  reduce  themselves  to  a  state  of  abominable 
wickedness  and  absolute  condemnation.  They  may  lose 
not  only  the  outward  signs  of  righteousness,  but  they  may 
lose  all  the  internal  principles  thereof,  and  they  may  be- 
come altogether  abominable.  Though  righteous,  and  ac- 
cepted, they  may  become  in  every  respect — in  relation,  in 
heart,  and  in  life — just  like  those  who  were  never  any  other- 
wise than  wicked  and  condemned.  As  trees  of  righteous- 
ness they  may  lose  not  only  the  leaves  of  profession,  but 
they  may  become  "  trees  whose  fruit  withereth,  without 
fruit,  twice  dead,  plucked  up  by  the  roots."  Wlien  the 
righteous  turn  away  from  their  righteousness,  and  commit 
sin,  they  thereby  abrogate  all  their  good,  forfeit  their  jus- 
tification, and  vitiate  their  title  to  an  inheritance  in  heaven. 
This  doctrine  is  forcibly  set  forth  by  Jesus  in  the  parable  of 
the  debtor.  The  indebtedness  was  forgiven  the  debtor  by 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  329 

his  lord,  but  when  the  lord  of  the  debtor  heard  of  his 
overbearing  exaction  in  dealing  with  others,  he  revived 
the  debt,  and  required  the  man  to  pay  it  in  full — the  same 
as  though  it  had  never  been  forgiven.  Christ  says:  "So 
likewise  shall  my  heavenly  Father  do  also  unto  you,  if  ye 
from  your  hearts  forgive  not  every  one  his  brother  their 
trespasses."  (Matt,  xviii.  35.)  According  to  this  text,  a 
Christian  may  forfeit  his  justification,  his  sins  be  revived 
against  him,  and  he  rest  under  condemnation  the  same  as 
though  he  had  never  been  forgiven.  There  is  no  salvation 
from  which  all  contingency  is  removed,  finished  and  com- 
plete, this  side  of  a  glorified  state  in  heaven.  There  is  a 
glory  which  the  Christian  here  has  not  yet  realized,  a  glory 
still  deferred.  The  resurrection  of  the  body  and  the  glo- 
rification of  both  soul  and  body  in  heaven  are,  to  the  one 
who  dwells  on  the  earth,  things  of  the  future.  According 
to  the  text  already  quoted  from  Romans,  the  body  is  to 
be  redeemed  from  vanity,  death,  and  the  grave.  There 
is  to  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead.  "For  the  hour  is 
coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall 
hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ;  they  that  have  done 
good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  arid  they  that  have 
done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation."  (John  v. 
28,  29.)  "But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and 
become  the  first-fruits  of  them  that  slept."  (1  Cor.  xv. 
20.)  Here  is  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  here  is  the 
manifestation  and  guarantee  of  the  resurrection  of  all  the" 
sleeping  saints.  Christ  has  risen,  and  given  promise,  pledge, 
and  hope  of  the  resurrection  of  all  who  have  died  in  the 
faith.  "Every  man  in  his  own  order:  Christ  the  first- 
fruits;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming." 
(1  Cor.  xv.  23.)  When  Christ  shall  come,  at  the  end  of 
the  world,  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead,  the  last  en- 
emv,  death,  shall  be  destroved;  the  dead  shall  be  raised 


330  The  Old  and  ike  New  Mmi: 

up,  and  the  bodies  of  those  who  sleep  in  Jesus  shall  be 
changed  from  corruptible  to  incorruptible.  Then  death 
shall  be  swallowed  up  in  victory.  The  resurrection  does 
not  precede  the  death  of  the  body,  nor  take  place  before 
the  end  of  the  world.  The  body  which  here  labors  in  pain, 
and  is  continually  in  bondage  to  death,  and  which  finally 
falls  into  the  grave,  and  into  dust,  will  at  the  last  day, 
when  the  earth  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  be 
raised  up.  The  same  body  buried  in  the  grave  shall  be 
raised  up.  The  body  is  to  be  raised  up  by  the  power  of 
God,  not  sprout  or  come  up  by  the  power  and  process  of 
germination.  The  body  in  which  Enoch  walked  with  God 
was  the  body  which  was  translated  to  heaven,  and  refined, 
spiritualized,  and  glorified.  Elijah  went  up  by  a  whirlwind 
into  heaven  in  the  same  body  in  which  he  stood  on  the  top 
of  Carmel,  and  in  which  he  crossed  over  the  Jordan.  The 
same  body  in  which  Lazarus  lived,  and  which  was  put  in 
the  grave  when  he  was  dead,  was  the  body  which  was 
raised  up  by  Jesus,  when  he  said,  "Lazarus,  come  forth." 
There  was  no  germination,  in  this  rising  from  the  dead. 
The  body  of  Jesus  which  was  nailed  to  the  cross,  and  bur- 
ied in  Joseph's  new  tomb,  was  the  identical  body  which 
rose  on  the  third  day  after  the  crucifixion,  and  which 
ascended  to  heaven  after  forty  days'  sojourn  on  earth.  This 
gives  pledge  and  token,  guarantee  and  demonstration,  that 
the  identical  bodies  of  the  saints,  which  sleep  in  the 
graves,  shall  be  raised  up  at  the  last  day.  The  resurrec- 
tion is  not  past  already,  as  some,  who  have  erred  con- 
cerning the  truth,  say,  but  it  is  an  event  for  the  future ; 
and  the  foundation  on  which  it  is  promised  standeth  sure. 
God  knows  who  are  his,  and  them  he  will  raise  up  at 
the  last  day.  The  resurrection  of  all  the  dead,  as  it  was 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  is  to  be  effected  by  the  power 
of  God,  and  not  by  the  law  and  process  of  germination. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation. 


"Why  should  it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible  with  you, 
that  God  should  raise  the  dead?"  (Acts  xxvi.  8.)  God, 
who  existed  before  there  was  any  thing;  God,  who  made 
light  shine  out  of  darkness;  God,  who  devised  and  acted 
before  there  was  any  material  nature  and  any  material  laws ; 
God,  who  created  from  nothing  all  things  which  appear  to 
human  recognition,  can  raise  up  and  give  life  to  the  dead. 
In  the  valley  which  was  full  of  dry  bones,  there  stood  up 
upon  their  feet  an  exceeding  great  army  of  living  men. 

The  guarantee  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  gives  hope 
to  the  Christian — hope  not  for  this  life  only,  but  for  the  life 
which  is  to  come.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  a  con- 
summation devoutly  waited  for  by  the  children  of  God. 
This  is  the  victory  for  which  they  sigh,  wait,  and  hope. 
A\rith  lively  anticipation,  and  with  unspeakable  joy,  these 
sons  of  God  continually  exclaim:  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which,  according  to  his 
abundant  mercy,  hath  begotten  us  again  unto  a  lively  hope 
by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  to  an  in- 
heritance incorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and  that  fadcth  not 
away,  reserved  in  heaven."  (1  Pet.  i.  3-5.)  It  may  be 
repeated,  that  to  all  who  dwell  below  the  sun  salvation  is 
something  not  yet  secured.  Though  the  true  Christian  has 
already  been  justified  and  regenerated,  salvation,  as  a  com- 
plete and  consummated  estate,  is  yet  to  be  attained  through 
labor  and  trial — through  labor  yet  to  be  performed  and  trial 
yet  to  be  endured.  Hence  the  injunction  to  Christians  is, 
"  Work  out  yodr  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling." 
Where  salvation  has  been  attained,  completed,  and  con- 
firmed, hope  can  have  no  existence,  and  in  such  case  hope 
cannot  save.  Why  wait  and  hope  for  that  which  has  been 
already  possessed?  At  this  juncture  a  definition  of  hope 
may  very  properly  be  given.  Hope  is  defined  in  the  Bible, 
and,  as  there  defined^is  neither  introspective  nor  retrospect- 


332  The  Old  and  the  New  Man: 

ive,  but  is  prospective.  The  things  hoped  for  are  future. 
That  which  has  been  already  attained  is  not  hoped  for,  is 
not  waited  for,  is  neither  sought  nor  expected.  To  all  this 
the  apostle  testifies:  "But  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope;  for 
what  a  man  seeth,  why  doth  he  yet  hope  for?  But  if  we 
hope  for  that  we  see  not.  then  do  we  with  patience  wait  for 
it."  (Rom.  viii.  24,  25.)  That  which  is  attainable  is  ex- 
pected, that  which  is  desirable  is  waited  for  and  sought 
after.  Hope  is,  therefore,  the  desire  and  expectation  of  an 
obtainable  object  or  state  of  intrinsic  value.  Hope  is  the  op- 
posite of  despair.  While  hope  survives,  though  grief  may 
harass  and  bondage  oppress,  despair  cannot  exist. 

Salvation  is  -ascribed  to  hope.  Enervation  and  effemi- 
nacy will  discourage  action  and  retard  effort.  Hope  saves 
inasmuch  as  it  imparts  energy,  fortitude,  and  strength  for 
working  out  salvation.  It  is  hope  which  encourages  the 
heart,  supports  the  purpose,  and  prompts  to  perseverance 
under  the  perplexities,  toils,  and  vanities  of  the  present 
Christian  state.  Hope  imparts  courage  in  the  presence  of 
enemies,  gives  holy  boldness  in  the  presence  of  contests  and 
oppositions,  and  it  inspires  that  endurance  which  achieves 
the  victory  and  gains  the  crown.  Christians  have  to  meet 
numerous  conflicts  and  endure  many  tribulations  before 
they  reach  the  kingdom.  They  are  assailed  by  enemies, 
buffeted  by  foes,  oppressed  by  cares,  and  are  often  in  heavi- 
ness through  manifold  temptations.  Hope  propels  with  con- 
quering power,  lifts  up  the  sinking  head,  strengthens  the 
feeble  knees.  There  is  an  excellency  in  the  dignity  with 
which  hope  faces  dangers  and  triumphs  over  antagonists. 
"  We  glory  in  tribulations  also ;  knowing  that  tribulation 
workcth  patience;  and  patience,  experience;  and  experi- 
ence, hope;  and  hope  maketh  not  ashamed."  (Rom.  v. 
3-5.) 

in  navigating  the  wide  and  surging  sea  the  mariner,  ever 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation.  333 

and  anon,  encounters  rocks  and  shoals,  adverse  winds  and 
raging  billows,  and  gathering  tempests  and  furious  storms. 
Appalled  by  raging  elements  and  imperiled  by  approach- 
ing dangers,  in  the  emergency  and  in  the  extremity  the 
mariner  casts  out  the  indispensable  anchor.  By  this  an- 
chor the  ship  is  held  in  safety,  and  the  mariner  is  saved 
from  the  perils  of  the  sea,  by  which  he  was  surrounded. 
Likewise  the  Christian,  in  crossing  the  sea  of  life,  is  served 
and  saved  by  hope  wrhich  he  has  "  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul, 
both  sure  and  steadfast,  and  which  entereth  into  that  within 
the  veil." 

Hope  saves  the  Christian  inasmuch  as  it  governs  his  con- 
versation and  makes  him  persevering  in  every  good  word 
and  work.  He  who  has  hope  of  finally  resting  with  God 
will  be  cautious  in  his  ways  and  zealous  in  every  holy  cause. 
He  who  has  hope  of  finally  reaching  the  goodly  land  of 
promise  and  the  glorious  city  of  the  great  King  will  be  in- 
duced thereby  to  quicken  his  pace,  and  to  hold  on  in  his 
course.  He  who  has  hope  of  reigning  as  a  king  and  as  a 
priest  with  Christ  will  give  diligence  to  make  his  calling 
and  election  sure.  "Beloved,  now  are  \ve  the  sons  of  God, 
and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be;  but  we  know 
that,  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him;  for  we 
shall  see  him  as  he  is.  And  every  man  that  hath  this  hope 
in  him  purifieth  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure."  (1  John  iii. 
2,  3.)  The  Christian  is  allied  to  God  by  the  most  sacred 
relations,  and  by  an  acquired  character,  and  by  a  renewed 
nature.  He  is  a  child  of  God.  Of  this  there  is  no  doubt. 
The  Holy  Spirit  himself  bears  witness  to  this  truth.  But 
more  is  in  reservation  for  him.  There  is  a  glory  yet  to  be 
revealed,  a  benediction  yet  to  be  conferred.  There  is  a 
mastery  yet  to  be  achieved,  a  kingdom  yet  to  be  attained. 
The  Christian  shall,  by  and  by,  enter  into  the  King's  pal- 
ace, and  God  shall  be  seen  and  known  as  he  is  in  the  heights 


834  T/te  Oil  ami  the  New  Man: 

of  his  glory  and  holiness.  Then,  the  filial  mastery  achieved, 
he  shall  be  with  the  Lord  of  hosts,  and  shall  shout  unto 
him  with  the  voice  of  triumph.  The  saint  who  was  here 
subjected  to  vanity,  and  walked  under  clouds  and  dark- 
ness, shall,  in  the  New  Jerusalem,  behold  the  beauty  of  the 
Lord,  and,  participating  in  his  glorious  praise,  he  shall  set 
forth  the  honor  of  the  divine  name  forever.  He  that  is  in- 
spired with  the  hope  of  this  exaltation  and  this  renown  will 
continually  seek  to  be  pure.  This  hope  induces  him  to  la- 
bor for  this  purity,  and  inasmuch  as  it  produces  this  labor, 
care,  and  purity,  it  thus  saves  him.  Knowing  that  he  is  to 
be  with  God,  the  Infinite,  and  in  heaven,  the  holy  place,  he 
labors  to  maintain  a  suitable  preparation  for  the  association 
of  the  place  to  which  he  is  to  go.  When  reverses  over- 
whelm and  sorrows  oppress,  when  "days  are  dark  and 
friends  are  few,"  hope  lifts  up  the  head,  sustains  the  spirit, 
and  cheers  the  heart.  Thus  hope  saves. 

Prayer  and  praise,  the  active  work  of  charity,  and  good 
deeds  in  general,  and  holding  forth  the  word  of  life  in  the 
interest  of  mankind,  are  all  enjoined  in  the  life  and  work 
of  salvation. 

Divine  revelation  portrays  the  work  of  salvation  in  its 
order,  steps,  stages,  and  circumference.  The  beginning  and 
the  ending  of  the  work  of  salvation  are  both  exhibited. 
One  is  found  in  the  inceptive  institution  of  the  redemptive 
scheme,  and  the  other  is  found  in  the  final  glorification 
of  those  Avho  love  God.  "And  we  know  that  all  things 
work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  to  them  who 
are  the  called  according  to  his  purpose.  For  whom  he  did 
foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the 
image  of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  first-born  among 
many  brethren.  Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them 
he  also  called;  and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified; 
and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified."  (Rom. 


Or,  Sin  and  Salvation..  335 


viii.  28-30.)  The  work  of  Christ  shall  be  completed,  iiot 
destroyed ;  consummated,  not  annihilated.  When  the  end 
of  the  world  has  come,  when  the  redeemed  of  the  earth 
have  been  glorified  with  Christ  in  the  eternal  paradise,  the 
triumph  of  God  will  be  complete,  all  opposing  rule,  au- 
thority, and  power  being  then  subdued  and  suppressed. 
Here  is  the  termination  of  the  mediatorial  dispensation  of 
the  Son  of  God.  This  mediatorial  reign  shall  terminate 
because  its  work  is  finished,  because  its  achievements  are 
complete.  The  battle  fought,  the  victory  won,  the  triumph 
achieved,  the  work  of  redemption  consummated,  the  triune 
God  is  all  in  all. 


THE  END. 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


50w-3,'68(H9242s8)9482 


A     001009058 7 


